[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3385-3404]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELATING TO RISK ZONES FOR INTRODUCTION OF 
                    BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 4, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 4) providing for 
     congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the 
     Department of Agriculture under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, relating to risk zones for introduction of 
     bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be up to 
3 hours for debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the 
resolution and in support of the rule as proposed by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. I do this, first of all, with great 
appreciation of the efforts of my colleagues to bring this resolution 
forward. But I must encourage my colleagues to vote against this 
resolution.
  This is not the time to pull the plug on a rulemaking process that is 
rooted in the best available science and, instead, to be guided by the 
concerns that seem to be less about science than about trade 
advantages.
  The illustrious chairman of the Finance Committee went into great 
detail about the trade issues and the fact that the rule change is 
based on sound science. That is a lot of what I want to talk about 
initially this morning.
  First, I think we need to understand exactly what the resolution 
seeks to disapprove of today. On January 4, 2005, the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture published its final rule regarding further reopening of 
the U.S. border for beef imports from Canada. This rule designates 
Canada as the first ``minimal-risk region'' for bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy, otherwise known as BSE. I will not try that long word 
again. We are going to call it BSE. It is due to become effective on 
this Monday, March 7, 2005. The original rule would have allowed bone-
in beef from cattle of any age and live cattle under 30 months of age.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted two rounds of public 
comment and received over 3,300 comments on the proposed rule. Over a 
period of months, USDA considered these comments, and responses were 
published with the final rule. The final rule establishes criteria for 
geographic regions to be recognized as presenting minimal risk of 
introducing BSE into the United States.
  USDA utilized the OIE, which is the International Office of 
Epizootics, the international body that deals with animal diseases 
worldwide. Again, this will be referred to as the OIE. The USDA 
utilized the OIE guidelines, which recommend the use of risk assessment 
to manage human as well as animal health risks of BSE, as a basis in 
developing final regulations defining Canada as a minimal-risk country.
  The final rule places Canada in the minimal-risk category and defines 
the requirements that must be met for the import of certain ruminants 
and ruminant products from Canada. Under the USDA definition, a 
minimal-risk region can include a region in which animals have been 
diagnosed with BSE but where sufficient risk mitigation measures are in 
place to reduce the likelihood of the disease's introduction into the 
United States.
  On January 2, 2005, Canada confirmed its second domestic case of BSE, 
and a third case 9 days later. The USDA sent a technical team to Canada 
on January 24, 2005, to investigate Canada's adherence to the ruminant, 
ruminant feed ban. The results of that investigation were favorable, 
finding that the Canadian inspection program and overall compliance to 
the feed ban were good. The technical team's epidemiological report 
investigating possible links of the positive animals is still pending.
  In response to this, on February 9, 2005, Secretary Johanns announced 
USDA would delay the implementation of that part of the rule allowing 
for older bone-in beef--that is beef in excess of 30 months old--
because the technical team's investigation in Canada would not be 
complete by March 7.
  The current rule now allows imports from Canada of bone-in beef and 
live cattle under 30 months of age intended for immediate slaughter.
  On January 24 of this year, USDA sent a team to Canada to assess the 
adequacy of Canada's current ruminant feed ban, as previously stated. 
On February 25, USDA published their report, and in this report USDA 
stated:

       [T]he inspection team found that Canada has a robust 
     inspection program, that overall compliance with the feed ban 
     is good, and that the feed ban is reducing the risk of 
     transmission of BSE in the Canadian cattle population.

  Furthermore, the report notes the obvious fact that:

       [T]he Canadian feed ban is not substantially different than 
     the U.S. feed ban.

  Those who want to seriously question the adequacy of the Canadian BSE 
controls should keep in mind that Canada almost perfectly mirrors the 
controls in place in the United States. The controls for BSE in the 
United States are sufficient and, according to all the data available, 
the similar controls in Canada are also sufficient.
  We should keep in mind also that the question regarding Canadian beef 
and

[[Page 3386]]

cattle imports is not a food safety issue. I repeat, it is not a food 
safety issue. It is an animal health issue. That is what we are talking 
about today.
  BSE is not spread by contact between people or animals. Safeguards 
are in place in both the United States and Canada to ensure that no 
potentially infectious material would ever make it into the human food 
supply, period.
  Internationally accepted science maintains that the removal of 
certain specified risk materials that contain the prions that cause BSE 
eliminates the disease's infectivity. Canada has adopted SRM removal 
requirements that are virtually identical to current U.S. regulations.
  In addition, while the Canadians do not view tonsils in cattle under 
30 months as SRMs, the U.S. requires that all meat exported from Canada 
to the United States have the tonsils removed pursuant to U.S. 
regulations.
  Finally, the Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, has audited a 
number of Canadian plants and found them to be in compliance with U.S. 
BSE requirements, including SRM and small intestine and tonsil removal.
  Since all potentially infectious materials are removed from every 
animal old enough to theoretically exhibit the disease, both in the 
United States and Canada, it should be clear that this is an animal 
health debate only. We are all committed to maintaining the highest 
standards of human health protection. We have those already today, and 
we will still have those standards after this rule takes effect.
  Regarding the issue of animal health, the OIE has affirmed that 
Canadian BSE control efforts have resulted in a very low risk of BSE in 
their cattle herd. The best available science in both Canada and the 
United States tells us that the safeguards in place are protecting 
animal health also. USDA-APHIS has conducted multiple investigations 
into Canada's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban compliance since the May 
2003 border closure, and all scientific, risk-based evidence has 
pointed to resuming beef and cattle trade with Canada.
  They have concluded that the Canadian ruminant feed ban, which took 
effect simultaneously with our own feed ban, is effective in preventing 
the introduction and amplification of BSE in both Canadian and U.S. 
cattle herds. We can choose to go down the road of trade protection or 
we can continue to trust the best science available. I encourage us to 
stick with sound consensus science.
  On January 17 of this year, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association 
sent a delegation of producers and scientists to Canada to evaluate the 
effectiveness of that country's BSE control efforts. The National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association is the largest beef producer organization 
in the United States, representing both beef producers as well as 
processors. The outcome of the NCBA review published on February 2 
affirms their confidence that the Canadian BSE safeguards are adequate.
  Regarding the Canadian feed ban, the NCBA Delegation concluded:

       The Canadian feed industry appears to be in compliance with 
     its feed ban, based on visual inspections and multiple annual 
     audit reports.

  They also concluded that Canada's BSE surveillance and proposed 
import requirements related to animal health were sufficient to protect 
the U.S. cattle herd, if the border with Canada is opened even further.
  While we would never want to formulate U.S. policy merely based on 
the practices of another country, it is instructive to note that 
domestically produced beef consumption in Canada is up, not down. It is 
clear that Canadians are not shipping beef to us that they don't choose 
to eat themselves.
  In 2003, the last year for which numbers are available, Canadian beef 
consumption increased 5 percent to 31 pounds per person per year. 
Indications are that consumption in 2004 will be just as strong if not 
stronger. We can be confident that the beef exports from Canada 
presently underway and the ones proposed by USDA's rule don't 
constitute dumping unwanted product in our market but are composed of 
the same beef that Canadian consumers recognize as wholesome and are 
buying in increasing quantities.
  In the past, a large percentage of Canadian cattle came to the U.S. 
processing plants for further value-added processing and to provide 
sufficient livestock numbers to keep in business many U.S. plants near 
the northern border. Since the closure of the U.S. border to Canadian 
beef, the Canadian processing capacity increased by 22 percent in 2004 
alone.
  This means that those processing jobs and all the added carcass value 
are now increasingly in Canada and no longer in the United States. This 
may have especially significant impact on U.S. processors in the 
Pacific Northwest who have relied on Canadian cattle to keep their 
plants open. In recent months, several U.S. companies have announced 
that they are suspending operations or reducing hours of operation due 
to the tightening cattle supplies and lack of an export market. If we 
keep our border closed to Canadian-slaughtered cattle and bone-in 
carcasses, then their meat will still come to the United States as 
boneless cuts because that is already happening with or without this 
rule. But the added value and jobs that could be in the United States 
will increasingly be kept in Canada.
  Agricultural trade is vital to maintaining a robust agricultural 
economy in the United States. The future of agriculture in this 
country, the future of ranching depends upon our ability to export the 
finest quality of agricultural product of anybody in the world. As the 
world's largest trading partner, we must base our trade decisions on 
sound science. We have the most to lose when nontariff trade barriers 
are enacted.
  USDA has made resumption of international trade in U.S. beef a high 
priority. The United States and Japan have held consultations and 
agreed that the trade in beef between the two countries should resume 
given certain conditions and modalities. We have to remember that our 
beef exporting trade with Japan has been discontinued due to the fact 
that we found one cow in the United States with BSE, although it turns 
out that cow originated in Canada and came into the United States.
  Japan is one of our largest markets, and it is a critical market for 
us to reopen. USDA is in the midst of negotiations today for the 
reopening of that market. Taiwan has also agreed in principle to resume 
imports of U.S. beef and beef products. Removal of restrictions by some 
of our major Asian trading partners is on the horizon.
  In 2003, we exported $1.3 billion worth of beef products to Japan, 
$814 million worth of beef to South Korea, and $331 million to Canada. 
In 2004, after the one BSE positive cow was found in Washington State, 
we exported essentially zero dollars' worth of beef products to Japan 
and South Korea and $98 million worth of beef to Canada. These 
countries are aware of our rulemaking and are watching how we address 
this issue with Canada. We have a huge stake in seeing worldwide trade 
in beef resume on the basis of sound science rather than on trade 
protectionism.
  Make no mistake, we are sending a very powerful message today with 
our actions on this resolution to all of our trading partners. For 
countries prohibiting beef imports from the United States, whether we 
continue to adhere to sound science in our dealings with Canada could 
influence their future actions toward our beef. Canada has met our 
minimal risk standards, and we must adhere to the policy dictates of 
sound science or face others using arbitrary standards toward us.
  Currently, there is a suit filed in U.S. district court in Billings, 
MT, challenging USDA's BSE minimal risk region rule. Yesterday, after a 
hearing, a temporary injunction was granted staying the implementation 
of the final rule and ordering the two parties to sit down and agree to 
a schedule for a trial which must take place in the short term because 
of this being a temporary injunction. At this point in time it would be 
wise to allow the court proceeding to play out. It would be premature 
to pass this resolution and interfere with the operations of

[[Page 3387]]

that court. We can always come back after the judicial proceedings are 
finished and express our disapproval. It is appropriate for us to allow 
the third branch of Government to finish their review of this rule, and 
we should not usurp the judiciary on this matter.
  In summary, according to the best science available in our hands 
today, further opening of the U.S. border to Canadian bone-in beef and 
cattle under 30 months of age does not pose a serious threat to the 
U.S. beef herd. It certainly does not increase the risk of human BSE 
exposure. Recent evaluations of the Canadian cattle industry by the 
NCBA indicate that there is not a wall of cattle that will flood into 
the U.S. market from Canada should this rule go into effect.
  The Canadian Government, USDA, and the NCBA have all reviewed the 
Canadian BSE safeguards and found them sufficiently robust and 
protective for trade to be expanded as this rule proposes. Beef 
exported from Canada has to meet the same science-based standards that 
have been successfully protecting our consumers and beef producers for 
many years.
  It has been stated before--and I repeat--that Americans are blessed 
with the most abundant, affordable, and safest food supply in the 
world. The action we take today will not make our food supply safer. It 
merely enforces and encourages the actions of those who would restrict 
trade with measures not related to sound science.
  I encourage my colleagues to say yes to sound science by saying no to 
this resolution today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee. I respect the chairman of the committee, but on 
this issue we have a profound difference. Let me alert my colleagues 
and their staffs who are watching, this is going to be a consequential 
vote. We are only spending 3 hours on this issue this morning because 
we are operating under special procedures. But let every colleague of 
mine understand: They are going to be responsible for the votes they 
cast today. The risk that is being run here is significant.
  Let me remind my colleagues what happened in Europe when mad cow 
disease got loose on their continent. One hundred forty-eight people 
died in England alone. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were 
slaughtered in that country. They found 183,000 head that were 
infected, and they believe there were 2 million head of livestock 
infected in England alone that they were not able to complete tests on 
because of the magnitude of the crisis.
  This vote may be critically important to the health of consumers and 
to the health of an entire industry. Make no mistake. When the question 
is science, that is precisely what this debate is about. Is, in fact, 
science being used by our neighbors to the north or are they simply 
putting regulations on the books that are not enforced?
  The record is clear and the facts will demonstrate conclusively, 
Canada is not enforcing their own regulations that are based on sound 
science. But if you don't enforce the regulations, if you don't do the 
inspections, what does it mean? What does it mean to have on the books 
regulations that are based on sound science if they are not enforced?
  I introduced S.J. Res. 4 on February 14 pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act. It is a resolution to disapprove of the final rule produced 
by USDA that designates Canada as a minimal risk region for BSE or mad 
cow disease.
  Let's review the facts. Canada already has four known cases of mad 
cow disease. That is not speculation. That is not based on some 
wondering about what is happening in Canada. That is based on facts, 
four known cases. In addition, they have one case of a cow imported 
from England positively tested for mad cow disease. So this is not some 
theoretical discussion we are having today. They have mad cow disease. 
It is demonstrated.
  Now the question is, Should we run the risk of opening our border to 
livestock imports from Canada when the evidence, I believe, 
demonstrates clearly they are not enforcing their regulations to reduce 
the risk to them and to us?
  I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle 
and expanded beef product imports at this time is risky and, I believe, 
premature. Allowing the USDA rule to go forward could have very serious 
consequences for the human and animal health in this country.
  Let me be perfectly clear. It has never been my intent to keep the 
border with Canada closed on a permanent basis. Over the last several 
weeks, I and many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have 
raised concerns about this rule. Unfortunately, those concerns have 
fallen on deaf ears. The Secretary of Agriculture has refused to 
withdraw the rule so sensible modifications could be made. This has 
left us with no option, other than this process, to stop a bad rule 
from becoming effective on March 7.
  We all know a judge has issued an injunction against the rule, but 
none of us can know when the judge might withdraw his injunction. Our 
obligation and our responsibility is clear. This rule can go forward on 
March 7 absent our action. Reopening the border under the conditions 
provided in the rule poses, I believe, grave safety risks for our 
consumers, serious economic risks for the U.S. cattle industry, and it 
complicates our efforts to reopen export markets.
  BSE is an extremely dangerous disease. As I indicated earlier, after 
it was first identified in England in 1986, England suffered nearly 150 
deaths from this disease. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were 
slaughtered. Around the world, additional human deaths from Creutzfeld-
Jacobs disease have been linked to BSE. So we must be very cautious 
before we consider opening our border to imports from a country known 
to have BSE.
  Again, this is not a matter of speculation. We know they have mad cow 
disease in that country. Since the European outbreak, scientists from 
around the world have been engaged in efforts to learn more about the 
disease. They have developed methods to test, control, and eradicate 
BSE. Through the international organization for animal health, known as 
the OIE, experts have designed science-based standards for the safe 
trade of beef products and live cattle from countries that have, or may 
have, BSE.
  In particular, because BSE is transmitted through livestock feed 
contaminated with animal protein containing BSE, it is critical that 
countries adopt measures to ensure that animal protein and other 
specified risk materials are not present in cattle feed. That is what 
is so important to understand here. This is a matter of what is in the 
feed that the cattle are eating. The OIE guidelines require a ban on 
cattle feed containing meat and bone meal from cattle be in effect for 
8 years as the primary means to reduce the likelihood of BSE infecting 
cattle.
  Unfortunately, the USDA does not appear to have followed OIE 
guidelines in developing its rules. Canada's ban went into effect in 
August of 1997; that is less than 8 years ago. Even then, the Canadian 
rules allowed for potential BSE contaminants that were in the feed 
manufacturing and marketing system. Unfortunately, the way the 
Canadians put their rule into effect, it allowed potential BSE 
contaminants to work their way through the industry. Moreover, with 
respect to Canada, USDA has not done a thorough evaluation to ensure 
that Canada's cattle feed is not contaminated with animal proteins.
  The U.S. has appropriately blocked cattle imports from Canada since 
Canada confirmed its first case of BSE in May of 2003. Concerns were 
only heightened when BSE was confirmed in a dairy cow of Canadian 
origin in Washington State in December of 2003. This case resulted in 
many important U.S. trading partners banning the importation of U.S. 
cattle and beef, a situation that continues today.
  Let me make this clear. When our friends say we have to open our 
border so others will open their borders to us, you have it backwards. 
The reason other countries have closed their borders to our exports is 
because of their

[[Page 3388]]

concern about our allowing imports from Canada, when they have known 
cases of BSE, and when it is quite clear that Canada is not enforcing 
their regulations to prevent additional outbreaks of this serious 
disease.
  So it is very important that we and USDA move slowly, cautiously, and 
deliberately, and evaluate all possible risks before reopening our 
border to Canadian cattle. But the USDA rule doesn't do this. In 
particular, Canada has not effectively implemented measures to contain 
and control BSE for 8 years, as required by the OIE. Moreover, USDA has 
applied a very loose and flexible interpretation to the specific 
recommendations developed by the OIE.
  In fact, it appears that Canada has not dedicated the necessary 
resources for enforcement and compliance within a large part of its 
feed manufacturing industry. Colleagues, staffs who are listening, hear 
this well. There are nearly 25,000 noncommercial, on-farm feed mills in 
Canada that produce about 50 percent of Canada's livestock feed. Canada 
has inspected only 3 percent of these facilities over the last 3 years. 
This is a gaping hole in their compliance program.
  Let me repeat for anybody who missed it the first time. In Canada, 
there are 25,000 on-farm feed mills that are producing feed. Only 3 
percent have been inspected in the last 3 years. Are we going to bet 
the lives of American consumers, bet the economic strength of an entire 
industry on that kind of a review regime? Is that what we are going to 
do today? I hope not.
  Since USDA announced its final rule designating Canada as a minimum-
risk region for BSE, Canada has confirmed two additional BSE cases. Let 
me repeat that. Since USDA proclaimed Canada to be minimal risk, two 
more cases of mad cow disease have been discovered. The most recent one 
is particularly disturbing, because it involves a cow born several 
months after Canada implemented its ban on animal proteins in cattle 
feed. Again, let me repeat that. The most recent case of mad cow 
disease in Canada is in a cow that was born after Canada implemented 
its ban on animal proteins in cattle feed. Let's connect the dots. Four 
cases of mad cow disease in Canada and an additional one of a cow 
imported to Canada from Britain. Half of the Canadian feed industry has 
been inspected in only 3 percent of the cases over the last 3 years. 
The most recent cow discovered with the disease was discovered after 
the Canadian ban on animal proteins in cattle feed was put forward.
  What does this tell us? I believe it tells us the Canadian ban has 
been ineffective. It is not just my belief; we have evidence from 
Canada's own inspection service. Let's put up the first chart, if we 
could. This is from the Vancouver Sun, December 16, final edition:

       Secret tests reveal cattle feed contaminated by animal 
     parts: Mad cow fears spark review of ``vegetable-only'' 
     livestock feeds.

  It says that according to internal Canadian Food Inspection Agency 
documents--obtained by the newspaper through the Access to Information 
Act--70 feed samples labeled as vegetable-only were tested by the 
agency between January and March of 2004. Of those, 41, or 59 percent, 
were found to contain undeclared animal materials.
  This is the risk being run if this border is open to Canadian cattle 
on March 7 of this year. We know what happened in Europe. In England 
alone, 146 people died. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were 
slaughtered. Canada has 4 known cases of mad cow disease, and their own 
inspection service finds that in 59 percent of the cases where they 
have done testing, material that was not supposed to be present was 
present--the very material that can lead to the disease. Are we going 
to run the risk of allowing that to come into the United States?
  On February 2, 2005, 1 month ago, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency 
finally issued a report concerning these very serious charges. Of 65 
Canadian samples that received further testing, 54 cases containing 
animal protein were determined to be proteins that were not prohibited. 
That is good news. Unfortunately, in 11 cases, or 17 percent, Canada 
could not rule out the presence of prohibited material.
  Since October 2003, our own Food and Drug Administration has issued 
19 import alerts concerning imported Canadian feed products that are 
contaminated with illegal animal proteins. Eight of these import alerts 
against Canadian livestock feed manufacturers are still in force.
  I am getting very able assistance by my colleague from Kansas, 
Senator Roberts. That is high-class help.
  Let me repeat this because it is important for my colleagues to 
understand. Since October of 2003, our own FDA has issued 19 import 
alerts concerning Canadian feed products contaminated with illegal 
animal protein. Eight of those import alerts are still in force. Here 
they are: Muscle tissue in feed, where it is not supposed to be; muscle 
tissue and blood material in feed, where it is not supposed to be; May 
10, 2004, muscle tissue and blood material in feed, where it is not 
supposed to be; February 5, 2005, mammalian bone and bovine hair in 
feed; October 28, 2003, suspect muscle tissue and unidentified animal 
hairs; April 6, 2004, blood and bone material present.
  These alerts--every single one of them--are still in force today. Are 
we going to run the risk here of opening this border before we can be 
confident that Canada is enforcing their own regulations?
  Finally, Canada has recently implemented new rules to further 
restrict the use of animal protein in livestock feed, as well as in 
fertilizer.
  Listen to this: Canada's own justification for tightening its 
regulations is to reduce the potential for the cross-contamination of 
livestock feed products and fertilizers with animal protein that might 
contain the BSE prions. To me this suggests clearly that even Canadian 
officials are concerned that the enforcement and compliance with 
existing regulations may be inadequate.
  As I noted in a letter I sent with Senator Harkin, Senator Johnson, 
and Senator Salazar to the Secretary of Agriculture, there is concern 
that not enough time has elapsed to be certain that Canada's education, 
surveillance, and testing measures are truly indicative of their level 
of BSE risk.
  The bottom line is this: Canada has not achieved the necessary level 
of compliance to justify designating it as a minimal risk region. Their 
failure to enforce their own BSE measures could have serious 
consequences if USDA proceeds to reopen the border.
  What is the risk? First and foremost, it could create potential 
dangers for consumers in this country. The Consumer Federation of 
America has registered concern about the ramifications for consumer 
health and safety if the border reopened and support this resolution. 
They said:

       The Department of Agriculture's rule to open the border to 
     Canadian cattle and cattle products under 30 months of age is 
     decidedly less stringent than the international standards put 
     forth by the [IOE].
       . . . [I]t is important that USDA reconsider its push to 
     open the Canadian border and reexamine the risks that such an 
     action may pose to the U.S. consumers.

  It is not just the consumer groups that are concerned. Agricultural 
groups are concerned as well because this would not only pose a danger 
to our consumers but to an entire industry.
  The National Farmers Union and R-CALF USA have expressed strong 
support for the resolution because of their concern about ensuring the 
continued safety and integrity of our domestic cattle industry. This is 
what the Farmers Union has said:

       . . . National Farmers Union President . . . issued the 
     following statement.
       ``We believe it is inappropriate to proceed with reopening 
     the border at this time given Canada's most recent 
     discoveries of BSE positive cattle and the uncertainty of how 
     many additional cases will be detected.
       I urge members of the United States Senate to support and 
     cosponsor this important resolution.''

  R-CALF USA said:

       United States cattle producers should not be excluded from 
     protections afforded by the more rigorous science-based BSE 
     standards recognized throughout the world as necessary to 
     effectively manage the human health and animal health risks 
     associated with BSE.

  Our major export markets have remained closed to U.S. beef exports,

[[Page 3389]]

even though there has been no indigenous case of BSE in the United 
States. Compared to 2003, our beef product exports are off by over 82 
percent. Let's connect the dots. We have four cases of BSE, mad cow, 
proven in Canada. We have none in the United States. And yet countries 
we export to have remained closed to us. Why? Because of the risk they 
see from Canadian cattle coming into our market and being then further 
shipped to them.
  Here is what has happened to our U.S. beef exports: in 2003, $3.2 
billion, down to under $600 million in 2004. Prior to the discovery of 
BSE in Canada, Canada's total live product and beef product exports to 
the U.S. amounted to over $2.2 billion. In 2004, their exports to the 
United States were cut in half, $1.2 billion.
  U.S. ranchers and our cattle industry have suffered greater trade 
losses in our overseas markets than Canada has experienced because of 
U.S. limitations on their sales. In fact, our losses have been twice as 
big as theirs.
  I believe that reopening the border now before we have reached 
agreement on reopening our export markets will only give our trade 
partners a further excuse to delay reopening these critical markets for 
U.S. producers.
  We heard earlier a reference to the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association, which, prior to the new cases of BSE in Canada, supported 
reopening the border. They have recently adopted a new policy. It 
requires 11 conditions to be met before we designate Canada as a 
minimum-risk region. Of those conditions, only three will be met under 
the current rule.
  Let's be clear, the National Cattlemen's Association has outlined 11 
specific items that need to be met. Only three of them have been under 
the rule. And it is not just a national issue. My State perhaps has as 
much at stake as any. The North Dakota State Legislature recently 
passed a resolution urging that our border with Canada remain closed 
for live cattle and beef product trade. My legislature is 
overwhelmingly Republican--overwhelmingly. They adopted this resolution 
overwhelmingly, saying keep this border closed until you can assure us 
and assure our people that it is safe. They have made a determination 
that nobody can give that assurance today.
  The recent announcement by Secretary Johanns to restrict the 
importation of Canadian beef products to those from cattle under 30 
months of age is a step in the right direction; however, the 
announcement does not address the unresolved concerns about Canada's 
compliance with its own feed regulations.
  It was my hope that our new Secretary would withdraw the proposal to 
resume trade when he learned of these serious issues. But it now 
appears that the only way to stop this rule is for Congress to block 
it. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
resolution of disapproval.
  At the very least, we ought to delay this rule from being put into 
effect until we have a better sense of what is happening in Canada. 
There is an investigation ongoing. Why ever would we decide to go 
forward and open this border before our own investigation is complete?
  Let me conclude as I began by saying to my colleagues, this is a 
consequential vote. None of us know precisely how great the risk is. 
What we can say with some certainty is there is risk, and the 
consequences of a failure to get this right could be enormous. I hope 
my colleagues think very carefully about this vote.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to the joint resolution that has been 
brought forward by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. This is 
a great ``while I'' speech. While I share the Senator's concern, while 
I share his sense of frustration, while I share his sense of making 
sure that our beef is safe from BSE, I cannot support the resolution.
  I am from Dodge City, KS. This is a town that began during the cattle 
drives of the Wild West days and which still bases much of its economy 
on the beef industry. You cannot have anybody more interested, more 
vitally concerned about the beef industry than this Member. In fact, 
the number of cattle in Ford County, where Dodge City is located, far 
outnumbers the citizens of the county. I used to say they were in a lot 
happier mood.
  Not only is the beef industry king in Ford County, Dodge City, 
southwest Kansas, and the State of Kansas, it is a huge industry 
representing over $5 billion in annual revenues. We are a State with 
6.65 million head of cattle compared to a human population of 2.6 
million. Cattle represented 62 percent of the 2003 Kansas agriculture 
cash receipts, and the processing industry alone employs over 18,700 
Kansans. We rank in the top three of virtually every major beef 
statistic. There are few issues as important to the people of Kansas as 
the issue of how we handle actions that are related to BSE.
  Prior to the discovery of BSE in the United States in December 2003, 
Kansas was one of the top exporters of beef to the Japanese market. 
Since that fateful day in December of 2003, Kansas and U.S. beef 
producers have been locked out of the Japanese market.
  We should not still be locked out of that market by taking action 
like we may do as of today on this vote. The international science--I 
mean international science in every country concerned--says our cattle 
under 30 months of age are safe and not at risk for BSE. Yet we have 
agreed to not send meat from any animals under 20 months of age to 
Japan. Still that market remains closed to the United States.
  The market is not closed because of scientific concerns. It remains 
closed because of internal Japanese politics, and that is a fact. But 
we are moving forward, and I am hopeful that by continued pressure from 
the administration--from the President, the Secretary of State, 
everybody who has been in contact with the Japanese Government, and 
this Congress, many Members of Congress--we can somehow reopen that 
market, we can expedite that process.
  But today, be careful what you ask for. We will take a giant step 
backward in our efforts to reopen markets to Japan--or, for that 
matter, anywhere--if we vote to approve this resolution. The same 
international science and guidelines that say that U.S. beef and 
animals under 30 months of age are safe also say that the beef and 
animals in Canada under 30 months are safe as well. That is the 
international standard. That is the sound science standard.
  If we vote today to approve this resolution, the United States will 
be taking the same actions as the Japanese. I am not going to say it is 
based on politics. I know all of the concerns of my colleagues who are 
up on the northern border and the long history of those disputes. But 
we are going to be basing our decision on those concerns instead of 
sound science. I fear it will have both short-term and long-term 
ramifications. In the near term, it will undoubtedly set us back in our 
efforts to reopen the Japanese export market.
  How can we argue that they are not basing their decisions on sound 
science if we cast a vote that is not based on the same sound science? 
We have staffers today meeting, Agriculture Committee staffers, under 
the direction of the distinguished chairman, with ambassadors from 
Japan. If we vote on this today, why meet? What kind of progress could 
we possibly make? Long term, how can our negotiators in this Congress 
argue in the international arena that all agricultural issues--not just 
this issue--including biotech crops, beef hormones, food safety, and 
any number of other issues should be based on sound science if we 
ourselves vote on the concerns of individuals?
  I have heard some Members talk about they are going to vote for this 
because they worry about the lumber that is coming in from Canada. Are 
we about to open a trade war? I am concerned about that. But this is 
not the way to approach it.

[[Page 3390]]

  I understand the concerns of many of our producers and of my 
colleagues who support this resolution. Senator Conrad--I 
affectionately call him the agriculture program policy chart man 
because he has, at last count, 4,153 charts he has brought to the floor 
since I have had the privilege of serving here--is really a champion 
explaining rudimentary agriculture program policy, not only to 
colleagues but to all who watch these proceedings.
  So I understand his concern. I did oppose the entry of beef from 
animals over 30 months of age because it did not make any sense to 
allow that beef in the United States if we would not allow any cattle 
over 30 months due to safety concerns. That is a given.
  The international science and guidelines are clear on this issue. 
Animals under 30 months and meat from those animals is safe. If we vote 
for this resolution today, we will turn our back on the longstanding 
U.S. position in all international trade negotiations. We are going to 
hurt our efforts to reopen the Japanese market. We will be setting a 
very dangerous precedent for future trade policy battles, and Lord 
knows we are going to have those with the WTO ruling brought by Brazil.
  We have too much at risk to base this decision, no matter how 
difficult it may be, no matter how strong our feelings may be, on the 
politics and the passion of the moment. The long-term future of the 
U.S. beef industry may very well turn on this action we take today. I 
fear that this vote in favor of this resolution will send a negative 
message that will come back to haunt us on this issue and many other 
agriculture trade matters for years to come. I do not think we can 
allow that to happen. So I respectfully disagree with the Senator from 
North Dakota and I urge the defeat of this resolution.
  I yield back whatever time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from 
Kansas. He is my friend. I profoundly disagree with him about the 
conclusion. I think the risks run the opposite way. We want Japan to 
open their market to us? Then we better be able to assure them that our 
market and our supplies are safe. I believe the evidence is 
overwhelming that Canada is not enforcing their own regulations. Their 
own tests show it. They are not our tests. Their tests show they are 
not enforcing the regulations.
  I remind my colleagues of the consequences of a failure to get this 
right. In England, 146 people died. Almost 5 million head were 
slaughtered. There are four known cases of mad cow in Canada today, and 
an additional case of a cow imported from England. And we are going to 
open our border on March 7, when the Canadians' own testing agency 
shows that in 59 percent of the cases animal matter is present where it 
is not supposed to be? Is that what we are going to do? I hope not.
  I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota 
for his leadership on this crucial issue before the Senate today.
  I rise to speak on an issue of enormous significance to consumers, 
producers, and ranchers in my home State of South Dakota and all across 
America. The U.S. border is scheduled to be thrown open on March 7, 
2005, to Canadian live cattle and other assorted bovine products. While 
the rule was modified to ensure that live cattle and beef imports come 
from animals under 30 months of age, which is a modestly helpful 
adjustment, I retain profound concerns about the lack of scientific 
basis for the decision to throw open the border and feel that the 
timing of this administration decision could not possibly be worse for 
consumers and producers alike.
  We have seen four instances of BSE in cattle of Canadian origin, 
while the United States has not experienced even one indigenous case. 
In fact, two of these cases were detected after the Department of 
Agriculture released their final rule. I think those numbers become 
even more troubling when we compare the annual slaughter populations or 
total animals slaughtered in that time frame.
  There is an overwhelming difference when our neighbors to the north 
slaughter roughly less than 10 percent of the U.S. slaughter population 
and yet they have all of the indigenous BSE. I am concerned that the 
Department of Agriculture's rule is not based all on sound science, and 
I agree, science ought to be the determining factor.
  The USDA has chosen instead to adopt weaker standards in their final 
rule. Animals entering the United States will not and cannot be tested 
for BSE and there are no safeguards available to United States 
producers to relieve the effect of the millions of Canadian cattle 
lined up at our border.
  The final rule establishes minimal-risk regions for BSE and 
recognizes Canada as a minimal-risk region. However, that rule fails to 
recognize the internationally accepted standards set forth by the OIE, 
or World Organization for Animal Health, for minimal-risk regions, 
which are the only recognized standards that are accepted on a 
worldwide basis.
  Transmission of BSE is, in fact, still unclear and uncertain. 
Maintaining segregation of the Canadian and American herds to the 
largest extent possible is the only scientifically sound approach, and 
USDA's final rule only seeks to mix these cattle populations.
  The Bush administration and a Japanese Government panel have 
discussed certain parameters for importation of American beef. Namely, 
imported products would be from animals age verified at under 20 months 
of age and adhere to a certain grade of meat. These criteria were set 
because of Japanese consumer concerns. I fail to see how allowing the 
importation of Canadian cattle and products from cattle under 30 months 
of age into the United States, 10 months older than American beef that 
could be potentially exported to Japan, can possibly be beneficial for 
regaining consumer confidence in Japan or for maintaining consumer 
confidence in the United States.
  At one point, we were exporting about 10 percent of our beef to 
foreign nations, the Japanese being the largest buyer of American beef 
abroad. The Japanese, because of their own experiences with mad cow 
disease and human disease in that nation, are understandably very 
concerned that if they buy beef from another country, they want that 
beef to, in fact, come from a non-BSE country. It is the United States 
that jeopardizes our export market by throwing open the doors to a huge 
tidal wave of Canadian animals into the United States, mixing the whole 
herds together and then selling that export product or attempting to 
sell that without being able to identify whether we are, in fact, 
selling Canadian product or American product to the Japanese or anyone 
else. It is no wonder that throwing open this border is going to 
further jeopardize what is already a difficult circumstance for 
American exporters.
  Then for American producers, they wind up with a double whammy. The 
Canadian import into the United States is roughly equivalent to about 
10 percent of our herd, while we lose and further jeopardize an export 
market that had been 10 percent of our herd. That is a 20-percent swing 
jeopardizing consumer confidence in the United States and having the 
potential to have devastatingly negative consequences for livestock 
producers in America.
  I think the time is overdue, and USDA should spend more time being 
concerned about American livestock producers and a little less time 
being concerned about the viability of Canadian livestock producers, 
given the kind of public health and the export consequences this 
opening the border will entail.
  We lost a $1.7 billion export market when Japan shut their borders, 
and what we need is consistent leadership and guidance from the USDA 
that recognizes we ought to abide by internationally accepted standards 
for minimal risk and that a premature opening of that Canadian border 
not only will serve to undermine consumer confidence in America but 
will further

[[Page 3391]]

jeopardize our export market abroad. I believe the Japanese and other 
countries would love to buy American beef, but they want to know it is 
American beef that they are buying and not beef that has simply been 
funneled through our country from BSE-infected nations.
  USDA's decision is not only an economic threat for the viability of 
our rural communities, but it is also a consumer choice issue. Consumer 
groups have repeatedly voiced concern over this final rule. USDA is 
accountable and obligated to ensure that our consumers and ranchers are 
protected, which means keeping our borders closed for now. USDA has not 
been working for American consumers, ranchers, and producers with this 
final rule.
  There are several steps that should be taken before the Department of 
Agriculture should even consider opening our border with Canada, and 
country-of-origin labeling is one of those steps. I have long advocated 
a mandatory country-of-origin labeling program. The administration 
delayed COOL for 2 years during closed-door consideration of the 2004 
Omnibus appropriations measure. A mandatory country-of-origin labeling 
program for beef is now not scheduled to be implemented until September 
30, 2006. Yet, even lacking that ability of consumers to make knowing 
choices about the origins of the meat they serve their family, USDA 
would open the borders to a cattle population that poses a significant 
risk without even ensuring consumer choice in the grocery store aisle 
to buy American beef. I introduced bipartisan legislation to ensure 
that Canadian beef and cattle could not come across the border until 
country-of-origin labeling is implemented because that is simply the 
right thing to do, and I am pleased that we have bipartisan support for 
that measure.
  Because USDA insists on plowing ahead with an outrageously ill-timed 
decision, congressional action is required and we have a congressional 
resolution of disapproval to consider. An ample number of my Senate 
colleagues felt this opening the border rule should be set aside and 
chose to sign their names on the petition to do so. The vote on this 
resolution is an opportunity to stop a flawed course of action, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution of disapproval. It is 
crucial that USDA act in a responsible manner and revoke the final rule 
immediately.
  I am hopeful the administration will recognize the message this body 
will send today about the severity and the urgency of this situation. 
We need America to side with the best science on the Canadian border. 
We need America to be prudent relative to the enormous risk to both the 
livestock economy and the public health in America and the jeopardy of 
opening the border to our potential export market for beef.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting passage of this 
resolution of disapproval and to send a strong bipartisan message to 
USDA and to the White House to reverse course, to allow greater time 
for the best science to determine what in fact is happening in Canada 
relative to BSE, relative to their feed regime, and to give us an 
opportunity to be assured we are not endangering either our economy or 
the public health in the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado, who by profession is a veterinarian and 
certainly has, in addition to legislative knowledge, professional 
knowledge about this issue, Mr. Allard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
yielding 20 minutes. As the Senator mentioned, animals have been an 
important part of my life. I grew up on a cattle ranch and I have 
dedicated my life to animals and animal diseases.
  I rise today to tell my colleagues that I do not believe the policy 
that is now being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is 
risky, I do not think it is premature, and I think if we want to 
protect our cattlemen, we must pursue a policy of opening our borders 
of free trade. Colorado is one State that has historically benefited 
from the cattle industry and today it remains an important part of our 
economy.
  I will respond to a few specific points that were mentioned by my 
colleague on the other side. I will talk briefly about the people who 
became ill as a result of the BSE prion. It is a form of protein, 
modified virus, in Europe. The diet of Europeans is markedly different 
than the American diet in the fact that they view brains and spinal 
cord tissue as a delicacy. Here in the United States and in Canada, as 
a part of our processing of meat, we discard our central nervous system 
tissue, so it does not get into the food supply. We have rigorous 
enforcement in the United States. Canada has rigorous enforcement. As 
late as February 22, we had a group of scientists go to Canada, and 
they reported back to us that the enforcement of the rules and 
regulations in Canada was very robust, as it is here in the United 
States.
  But I think the most important thing we learned from the outbreak in 
Europe, and what we have learned with time, is that the prion, the 
organism that causes mad cow disease, occurs as a result of ruminant 
upon ruminant. By using that terminology, I mean that there are food 
supplements that are developed from animals, mostly ruminants, that 
then are fed back, either calcium or phosphorus, to the animal. When 
that happens that provides a vehicle for the transmission of the prion, 
the infectious organism. It doesn't transmit directly animal to animal 
by live contact or by human to animal by live contact. It is passed in 
the food supply when you have a ruminant supplement from another 
ruminant being fed.
  Finally, of the three or four cases that we have in Canada, three of 
those actually were before the provisions were put in place by Canada 
and the United States to prevent the consumption of ruminant-on-
ruminant feeds--except for one case. But that one case occurred very 
close to 1997. As a result of more rigorous efforts by both Canada and 
the United States, I believe beef is a good product, and I plan on 
eating beef. I do not hesitate for one moment talking to my colleagues 
about how good I think beef is and how we should not be overly 
concerned about the health effects of beef in our diet.
  The closure of our Canadian border has cost Greeley County, CO, which 
is one of the largest agricultural-producing counties in the United 
States, alone, $250 million to $300 million over the past year from 
diminished economic activity due to declining production at one single 
meatpacking facility. This is a result of the Canadian border closure. 
Totally, the economic impact of the border closure throughout the 
United States is $3 billion. The border with Canada should be open 
based on sound, scientific principles that ensure the integrity and 
safety of the U.S. cattle food supply.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture approach to these discussions has 
been rational and science based. Sound science is critical because it 
separates fact from myth and ignores mad cow hysterics. Television 
pictures of seizure-stricken cows are intended to draw viewers but do 
not represent the truth behind the image.
  Five other Senators joined me in April of last year in support of the 
immediate reopening of the Canadian border following these principles. 
Joining me on a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative were Senators 
Ben Nelson, Senator Campbell, Senator Murkowski, Senator Hatch, and 
Senator Brownback.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Wayne Allard,


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2004.
     Hon. Robert Zoellick,
     Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Zoellick: The purpose of this letter is to 
     bring to your attention

[[Page 3392]]

     our concerns relating to the present economic and trade 
     situation facing the U.S. beef industry as a result of the 
     Canadian border closure. We ask for your assistance to 
     facilitate the immediate reopening of the border to trade in 
     live cattle, based on sound scientific principles that will 
     ensure the integrity and safety of the U.S. cattle inventory 
     and the American food supply.
       Since the discovery of BSE in North America, the U.S. beef 
     industry is confronting the most significant challenge in its 
     105-year history. The economic impact of the border closure 
     has escalated over the past year and the industry is now at a 
     point where difficult decisions are being made to protect 
     long-term job stability. For example, beef processing plants 
     across the country have had to reduce hours significantly to 
     absorb the increasing pressure of the current situation, 
     resulting in job loss and reductions in worker's take home 
     pay. To date, the industry has suffered over a 12 percent 
     reduction in U.S. fed cattle being processed for the domestic 
     and international market place, at an estimated $12 billion 
     loss to the economy and impacting over 80,000 direct and 
     indirect jobs.
       As recently demonstrated by the Harvard Center for Risk 
     Analysis (HCRA), there is no body of scientific evidence 
     indicating that there is any potential risk to the American 
     consumer in allowing live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 
     months to enter the U.S. marketplace destined for fattening 
     or slaughter. Toward this end, the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture's (USDA) proposed rule to amend its BSE 
     regulations to allow the United States to import live cattle 
     less than 30 months of age from Canada harmonizes the health 
     interests of the American public with the international trade 
     interests of the United States, provided that it is 
     implemented based on sound scientific principles that will 
     ensure the integrity and safety of the U.S. cattle inventory 
     and the American food supply. By encouraging more practical, 
     science-based guidelines relevant to BSE risk management, 
     USDA's proposed rule will help restore the U.S. beef 
     industry's ability to remain competitive in an increasingly 
     global marketplace and protect long-term job stability in the 
     United States.
       While the United States cannot unilaterally open trade 
     borders with Japan, Korea and other key trade partners, USDA 
     can act expeditiously with respect to reestablishing live 
     cattle trade with our North American trading partners. We 
     hope that actions can be expedited toward this end as well as 
     with our other trade partners to remove scientifically 
     unjustified barriers to trade.
       We appreciate the attention and efforts that you have given 
     this serious matter to date and look forward to continuing to 
     work with you to ensure that adequate and science based 
     protections are in place to ensure open and free trade while 
     also protecting the health and safety of all Americans.
           Sincerely,
     Wayne Allard,
       United States Senator.
     Lisa Murkowski,
       United States Senator.
     Orrin Hatch,
       United States Senator.
     Ben Nelson,
       United States Senator.
     Sam Brownback,
       United States Senator.
     Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
       United States Senator.

  Mr. ALLARD. The USDA Minimal Risk Region rule should be implemented 
because it is grounded in solid, sound science and will help end a 
situation that has wreaked havoc on beef trade for too long. It will 
protect the integrity of the human supply system and stabilize 
agricultural trade.
  Canada meets the requirements of a minimal risk region, based upon a 
number of its actions. It has prohibited specific risk material in 
human food, as we do here in the United States. It placed import 
restrictions sufficient to minimize exposures to BSE. It has built and 
structured surveillance for BSE at levels to meet or exceed 
international guidelines, as we do here. And it has enacted a ruminant-
to-ruminant feed ban. Finally, the appropriate epidemiological 
investigations, risk assessment, and risk mitigation measures have been 
imposed.
  Opening the border with Canada will help restore the beef industry's 
ability to remain competitive in an increasingly global marketplace and 
protect long-term job stability in the United States.
  I have a chart that reflects Canadian beef exports. If we look over 
here to 2003 when the mad cow disease began to impact Canada, we can 
see, obviously, that there was a reduction in billions of pounds of 
carcass weight that was exported from Canada. But here we are moving 
from 2004. Not all the figures are in, but they are indicating we are 
going to get a pretty steep climb back in exports from Canada. And 
based on projections for 2005, exports from Canada are going to reach a 
historic high, despite the fact they have had mad cow disease in 
Canada.
  These facts come from a reputable analyst, analyzing firm based in 
Denver, CO, that traditionally cattlemen have relied on to analyze beef 
markets throughout the country.
  Let's look at the chart for U.S. beef imports from Canada. Obviously, 
in 2003 we saw a reduction in the amount of beef imports from Canada. 
Again, this is a million pounds of carcass weight over time. What we 
see in 2004 is that the imports from Canada have exceeded an all-time 
high, despite the fact that we have mad cow disease.
  The point is, we are importing Canadian beef at record levels. We 
need to change that policy because processors are moving their plants 
to Canada. More and more people are going into the Canadian beef 
business. As a result, we are at risk of losing our own market share of 
beef.
  The Greeley Tribune published an editorial stating that the United 
States must open its border with Canada. The Tribune is published in 
Greeley, CO, Colorado's most productive agricultural county.
  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Greeley Tribune, Mar. 1, 2005]

  Open Canada to U.S. Beef Salazar Must Follow Allard's Example With 
                                 Japan

       U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard is to be commended for his letter to 
     the Japanese ambassador last week demanding that the Japanese 
     government reopen its market to U.S. beef products.
       Allard was joined by almost 20 other senators in the letter 
     that was hand-delivered to Ambassador Ryozo Kato by Secretary 
     of Agriculture Mike Johanns, who expressed his appreciation 
     to Allard in taking the initiative to address the issue.
       In his letter, Allard--a Republican from Loveland and 
     Colorado's senior senator--noted that since the only 
     confirmed case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow 
     disease) in the United States, the U.S. government has worked 
     diligently to take the necessary steps to earn the confidence 
     of the Japanese public, in many respects exceeding 
     internationally established scientific requirements. Yet the 
     Japanese government has continued to drag its collective feet 
     in reopening the border.
       Allard hinted, rather strongly, that Congress could be 
     forced to take retaliatory actions on Japanese imports--which 
     exceed $118 billion annually--while expressing hope that step 
     would not have to be taken.
       Colorado's freshman senator, Ken Salazar, was one of the 
     others who signed the letter.
       But at the same time, Salazar has joined eight other 
     Democratic senators who signed a resolution of disapproval of 
     the USDA's proposal to reopen the Canadian border to imports 
     into the United States of live cattle starting this month. 
     Salazar cited safety and accountability as key concerns on 
     that move.
       Salazar should reconsider that position.
       The Canadian border is already open. Boxes of Canadian 
     beef--beef from the same cattle that are currently being 
     stopped at the border--are flowing into the United States, 
     resulting in a tidy profit for Canadian processors. If 
     science says that beef is safe, then so are the cattle which 
     are producing it.
       Economists have estimated that in the first four months the 
     border was open to Canadian beef. Weld County lost about $100 
     million from diminished economic activity due to the 
     declining production levels at the Greeley beef-packing plant 
     of Swift & Co. alone. That does not include Fort Morgan's 
     Cargill plant.
       So keeping the border closed to live cattle is contributing 
     to the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to Canada, which continues to 
     expand its processing industry to handle all its cattle, 
     while the U.S. beef-processing industry shrinks--running 
     about 10 percent below pre-ban averages. The jobs moving to 
     Canada are not likely to return.
       Industry officials have determined that re-opening the 
     border will not flood the U.S. market because the Canadian 
     market is relatively current. Those Canadian processors have 
     been running six days a week around the clock to process 
     their cattle, then sell the beef in the United States or in 
     the markets where they compete with U.S. beef.
       During his campaign, Salazar said he intended to put his 
     constituents ahead of party politics. yet in this case, he 
     sides with primarily Democratic legislators against the Bush 
     Administration.
       This position, being pushed by senators without major beef-
     processing plants, puts Salazar at odds with the best 
     interests of his constituents and his own state. He needs to 
     put science and the people who helped send him to Washington 
     ahead of politics.

[[Page 3393]]

       We urge the new senator to follow Allard's lead with the 
     Japanese and call for the U.S. border to be opened to live 
     Canadian cattle.

  Mr. ALLARD. Many of the supporters of the Resolution of Disapproval 
argue that because of U.S. policies, U.S. corporations are outsourcing 
jobs. The border closure has allowed Canada to grow its beef industry 
and increase its slaughter capacity, making Canada into a global 
competitor. While U.S. jobs are lost because of an unfair trade policy 
that allows cheap Canadian meat into the United States, they are being 
replaced in Canada as it bolsters its beef industry. Estimates will 
show that Canada will have the industry capacity to replace U.S. beef 
by May of 2005. Supporters of this resolution support the outsourcing 
of U.S. jobs.
  During the past several years, Canada's annual cattle slaughter has 
been 3.2 to 3.3 million head. This is equivalent to about 65,000 head 
of cattle slaughtered per week. In 2004, Canadian slaughter was about 
30 percent larger than during 2003. In 2005, Canadian cattle slaughter 
capacity is expected to increase to about 95,000 head per week. Canada 
is expanding available slaughter capacity in the country so it can be 
less reliant on the U.S. market to process animals. Reliance on the 
U.S. market will continue, but Canada will compete effectively against 
the United States in the world marketplace.
  According to the Canadian Meat Council, since May 2003, the Canadian 
beef industry has increased its daily beef capacity by more than 30 
percent. The additional Canadian slaughter capacity that is available, 
or planned, will allow the Canadian beef industry to increase cattle 
slaughter totals by about 25 percent from 2004 to 2007.
  Thanks to the border closure, thousands of U.S. workers have been 
laid off or have had their operations suspended. In Greeley, CO, 
located in the State's largest agricultural county, nearly 1,000 
workers lost their jobs thanks to the closure.
  Weekly cattle harvests in Canada are up 14 percent, from 72,000 to 
82,000 over the past year, and are expected to rise to 95,000 per week 
by mid-2005, a 25-percent increase over pre-BSE levels. The jobs that 
go with that increased production probably will never return to the 
United States.
  Prior to May of 2003, cattle imports from Canada accounted for 
approximately 4 percent of the U.S. production capacity. A number of 
these animals were also a part of the U.S.-Canadian Northwest Cattle 
Feeder Initiative. By allowing them to increase production capacity, we 
threaten U.S. production and marketing.
  The average number of imported Canadian cattle for all purposes, 
between 1970 and 2003, is 795,563 head per year. The highest level of 
cattle imports was 1.68 million in 2002, and the lowest was 245,000 in 
1986. The Minimal Risk Region rule requires animals to be imported 
exclusively for slaughter. Dairy, stocker, or other livestock segments 
are prohibited from importing animals for breeding or other purposes.
  Frankly, the Canadian border is already open. Boxed beef is coming 
across the border from Canada in record numbers, numbers higher than 
they were before BSE was discovered in Canada, creating a public policy 
windfall for those companies with processing facilities in Canada while 
punishing those in the United States. U.S. beef imports from Canada set 
a record in 2004, approaching 1.2 billion pounds, a 12-percent increase 
over 2002 levels. During 2005, beef imports from Canada are expected to 
total 1.2 to 1.3 billion pounds.
  Increased Canadian packing capacity is expected to increase beef 
production to more than 3.7 billion pounds in 2005 and exceed 4 billion 
pounds in 2007.
  The unfair public policy is best illustrated in the following 
example. Canadian packers can buy a cow for about $17 per hundredweight 
and sell the processing-grade beef for about $123. He can also buy a 
fed steer or heifer at about $67 per hundredweight and sell the meat 
for about $132.
  In the United States a cow will cost a packer about $55 per 
hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $125. The fed steer or 
heifer would cost about $85 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell 
for about $135.
  This imbalance has led, in part, to the layoff of thousands of people 
in the processing industry across our Nation. Eventually it will affect 
the cattlemen because our markets will be less available for those who 
have live fat cattle.
  The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has stated there is no body of 
scientific evidence indicating there is any potential risk to the 
American consumer in allowing live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 
months to enter the U.S. marketplace destined for fattening or 
slaughter.
  I have picked up, as a result of my colleague from North Dakota 
mentioning the Colorado cattlemen's position--I do have a list of the 
requirements they are requiring. I have read down through those, and 
those provisions are being met in the United States, and they are being 
met in Canada. We have just made a call to the National Cattlemen's 
Association, and they have indicated to us that they support the 
position of opposing this resolution. So they understand that the rules 
and regulations that are being proposed by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture do protect the American consumer. They do protect, in the 
long run, the future of the cattle industry.
  I just wanted to call that to the attention of the Members here, and 
I also want to again refer to my State of Colorado. There are a lot of 
States that have their economies built upon beef. In Colorado, on 
exports in general we have about $154 million in trade. We export $97 
million. Most of that is in the beef side. We have $51 million of beef 
that is exported. We import about $97 million. Some of it is live 
cattle, but a good percentage of it is breads and pastries and cakes 
and vegetables.
  If we do not address this problem, we are going to have a profound 
impact, in a negative way, on the Colorado beef industry and, 
throughout the country.
  Canada is one of our most important trading partners. Agriculture is 
a fundamental component of U.S. trade. If we cannot rationally restore 
the beef and cattle trade with our most important trading partner, I 
ask the question: How will we ever restore trade on a global scale?
  Some 20 Members of the Senate have joined me in sending a letter to 
the Japanese Ambassador asking him to reduce his import restrictions on 
beef from the United States. If we don't--and the other countries 
throughout the world are watching--what we are doing here?
  If we don't use good science and if we don't use good sound policy, 
it is going to have a prolonged impact on our trade policies throughout 
the world, particularly as it applies to the livestock industry.
  From what I understand, USDA appears to support the policies of the 
World Health Trade Organization. In fact, I think it exceeds what is 
recommended by the World Health Organization. I think Canada has the 
same policies, and I think they exceed what is required by the World 
Health Organization. We are setting the standard for the world.
  I feel comfortable in having beef for dinner. When I am asked the 
question, What's for dinner? I am not going to hesitate to say beef, 
because I think we have a quality product in this country. I think what 
is happening in Canada is comparable to what is happening in the United 
States. I think they are working hard to bring the regulations and 
rules into compliance with what we have here.
  We received a report a week or so ago from a group of scientists who 
visited Canada, saying they have a robust effort in their rules and 
regulations, just as we have a robust effort in this country.
  Again, when asked the question, What is for dinner? my answer is 
beef.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the Senator 
from Colorado, that in the Conrad family, when asked, What is for 
dinner? beef is often the answer.
  But that is not the question. The question is, Are we going to keep 
the beef supply safe? The evidence is overwhelming that Canada is not 
enforcing

[[Page 3394]]

their own regulations. Their own testing shows they have right now four 
cases of mad cow identified in Canada.
  I suggest to my colleagues that the better part of wisdom is for us 
not to open this border in a premature way. The risk is too great to 
our people and to our industry. The Senator cites the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association. I met with my representative of the 
National Cattlemen in my State. They urged me to proceed. They urged me 
to go to a vote. They urged me to try to carry the vote.
  When I look at what the National Cattlemen said, here it is. They put 
out 11 conditions that need to be met before the border is opened, and 
only 3 of them have been met. I would be glad at a later point to go 
right through the 11 conditions they said should be met. We can go 
right to the eight that are clearly not met. This border should not be 
opened until these 11 conditions have been met.
  I yield 10 minutes to my colleague Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have apparently resolved what everybody 
is going to have for dinner. Apparently it is beef. We haven't resolved 
who is going to stand on the floor of the Senate this morning and 
support our farmers and ranchers who produce that beef. That is the 
question--not what we are eating for dinner. Who is going to stand for 
the farmers and ranchers on this issue?
  It took a nanosecond to hear that we are protectionist this morning. 
Every thoughtful discussion turns into a thoughtless discussion in a 
nanosecond around here when it deals with trade, because instantly the 
subject of protection comes up and the word ``protectionism'' is used. 
God forbid that someone should be accused in this Chamber of the Senate 
of standing up to protect the economic interests of this country. It 
happens precious few times.
  But let me be somebody who says, if that is the charge, I plead 
guilty. I want to protect our economic interests. I don't want to build 
walls around this country. I believe expanded trade is helpful. But I 
also want to stand up for the economic interest of this country when it 
is at stake.
  Let me say one other thing, as I have been listening here. Let us 
stop walking hat in hand to the Japanese and asking for favors. Let us 
stop killing another tree to send one more letter to the Japanese. Last 
year, they had a $74 billion trade surplus with us. Because we had one 
Canadian cow found in the State of Washington with BSE, the Japanese 
don't want to eat American beef.
  Now we have people who say somehow the Japanese will be more 
confident to eat American beef, if we allow Canadian cattle to come 
into this country--cattle from a country where investigations have 
shown that the feed supply has prohibited animal materials. My 
colleague Senator Conrad described it. In December, the Vancouver Sun 
reported that officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found 
prohibited animal materials in 141 of 70 samples. Of the feed that was 
tested, 58 percent was found to have had prohibited animal materials.
  So somehow you are going to give the Japanese confidence by allowing 
Canadian cattle to come into this country on the heels of four examples 
of mad cow disease in Canada? I don't think so.
  I know there is a lot of passion about this issue. Canada is a great 
big, old, wonderful country with great neighbors. They are a wonderful 
neighbor of ours. We share thousands of miles of common border. I am 
heartbroken for the Canadian ranchers. I know it must be tough for 
them. I wish them no ill will at all. I regret that they have found 
examples of mad cow disease in Canada. But they have.
  Our responsibility is to stand up for the interests of American 
producers, American farmers, and ranchers. That is our job.
  Listen. You all read the papers last summer. The President was going 
to go to Canada. The speculation last summer was that in discussions 
with Canada there would be a promise that border would be opened after 
the election. We all read that--not once, several times. Sure enough, 
the election comes and goes, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
decides that the border has to be opened. Canada meets every test.
  It turns out they don't meet every test. It turns out this is not 
about sound science. This is about let us pretend. Frankly, some say 
let us pretend that everything is fine; that there is rigorous testing 
in Canada; that the testing meets all the requirements; that there is 
no difficulty, no problems; and, if we allow under the conditions set 
by the United States Department of Agriculture the import of beef and 
live animals from Canada, somehow things will turn out fine for us. 
But, of course, that is not the case. We know that is not the case.
  My colleague Senator Conrad offers this Chamber this morning an 
opportunity to cast a vote on this issue. I know we have already heard 
about protectionism, and we have heard this is tough on packing 
companies, which is another part of this, obviously. But the question 
for the Congress is, Will it stand up for the interests of American 
producers? Will it be something that will make it harder to get into 
international export markets once again with our beef?
  I think that it is time--long past the time--for this Congress to 
cast a vote in support of America's interests here, in support of our 
country's interests, and our producers' interests.
  I can think of dozens of debates on the floor of the Senate where in 
every circumstance where you talk about the interests of American 
producers, somehow foreign policy is overwhelming. All of this 
mishmash, this soft-headed nonsense, of course, comes from the State 
Department, and from all those in this Chamber who stand up on cue and 
say, Yes, sir, yes, sir, we certainly don't want to be accused of 
protectionism when it comes to economic interests. Let us find a high 
board, and dive right off that old high board.
  On this issue, Senator Conrad says he is not ready to dive, nor am I, 
nor I think are many in this Chamber ready to simply decide the 
economic interests of this country, the interests of farmers and 
ranchers, are to be sacrificed in this circumstance.
  A few days before Christmas of 2003, the one instance of BSE, or mad 
cow disease, was discovered in this country. It wasn't an American cow; 
it was a Canadian cow sent to this country from Canada. The 
consequences of that are dramatic, and they have been significant. But, 
my colleague, as I listened to his opening statement today, described 
consequences far more severe than that in Europe.
  We ought to move with some caution here and with some concern. We 
ought to move reasonably slowly to make sure we know what we are doing. 
But that has not been the case with USDA. And, in part, it is because 
the packing companies are putting on the pressure. It is partly, I 
think, because the President went to Canada last summer and made some 
representations. In part, it is because they say they are meeting all 
these tests. But my colleague Senator Conrad has taken the mask off all 
of that.
  How does one describe a response to what my colleague Senator Conrad 
has said, my colleague Senator Johnson has said, and what I have said--
that the tests in Canada as reported by the Canadian news and by the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency found prohibited animal materials in 58 
percent of the cattle feed tested?
  I have not heard one person respond to that. Is there a response? If 
so, I would be happy to yield to someone to offer me a response. Is 
there anyone here who wants to respond to the proposition that 58 
percent of the feed that has been tested, as reported in Canada, had 
animal parts in it? Is there no response? Doesn't it matter? Don't we 
care? Or, is this the case where we should ignore the evidence and 
decide that we came to the Chamber with our own preconceived 
conditions, opinions, and our own desire to support the President and 
USDA, and we have to vote that way?
  Although I am not going to be on the floor for the entire debate, I 
hope at some point someone might respond to that proposition.

[[Page 3395]]

  Evidence is a pretty difficult thing sometimes. The evidence here is 
compelling and clear. We have people saying that Canada meets all the 
tests, and then we have the evidence. They don't.
  When my colleague Senator Byrd one day was speaking on the floor, he 
said that the caterpillar, the squirrel, and the eagle, seeing the 
Earth from exactly the same spot, saw it differently. The caterpillar 
climbs on a clump of grass, and says, I can see the world. And on the 
exact same spot, the squirrel climbs the tree and says, I see the 
world. And at exactly the same spot, the eagle flies overhead, and 
says, I see the world. All three look at the same spot and see 
different things. It happens.
  But you can't look at the spot Senator Conrad asks you to look at 
today and see something different. You can't. The demonstration of that 
is there is no answer to the proposition that the feed testing in 
Canada is woefully inadequate. And if you believe that--and apparently 
you do, because nobody is contesting that--then opening that border at 
this point, in my judgment, compromises the interests of farmers and 
ranchers in this country.
  Why on Earth would we decide to do that? In whose interest are we 
here serving? Why would we decide to put someone else's interest first?
  There is nothing to be ashamed of, in my judgment, for standing up 
for this country's interest for a change. Perhaps once, just once 
today, on this vote we will see evidence of an interest of doing that 
here in the Senate.
  Let me conclude one more time by saying this is not about 
``protectionism.'' That is the kind of nonsense thrown around in every 
trade debate. But it is about protecting America's economic interests. 
That is what we come to the Senate to do. My hope is when we finally 
cast this vote, we will have done so this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Bond.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee for allowing me this time.
  I rise today as cochairman of the beef caucus to speak against Senate 
Joint Resolution 4, which seeks to condemn the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture plan to reopen the Canadian border to live cattle.
  I concur with the sentiments already expressed by the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee and the distinguished agriculturalist from 
Kansas, Senator Roberts. I also learned a great deal from the 
professional testimony of our Senator, Dr. Allard, from Colorado, about 
the safety and about the science that goes into the decision made by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  I note also that this past week, a group of our scientists who 
visited Canada said their system of protecting the food supply and the 
beef was robust and certainly could be counted on. As a member of the 
agriculture posse, I have heard Secretary Johanns, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, describe the steps they were taking to ensure our beef 
supply is protected.
  We just heard a defense of protectionism. Let me define what 
protectionism is. Protectionism is, in my view, the use of scare 
tactics, the use of unsound scientific information, in an attempt to 
protect our markets. In this case, I believe sound science dictates it 
is time to open the border. Were it not so, I would not be rising today 
in support of the Department of Agriculture.
  The fact remains, as Senator Allard has pointed out, not only is this 
not based on sound science, the impact of the beef ban has been to 
create a feeding and slaughter operation in Canada, which is moving the 
production facilities and jobs out of the United States and into 
Canada, potentially putting a very harmful impact on our ability to 
raise, slaughter, and produce the beef we eat in the United States. 
Yes, beef is what was for dinner last night. Tonight it will be my 
dinner, and it will continue to be.
  Every Member of this body and our constituents back home expect the 
U.S. Government to work to ensure we have the safest food supply 
possible. That is why we hire scientists. That is why we hire 
veterinarians. That is why we devote efforts to make sure it is safe. 
Unfortunately, all too often, the United States takes the abundance and 
safety of our food supply for granted. When we are faced with 
challenges to these expectations, like reports of BSE or mad cow 
disease in our cattle or our immediate neighbor's, the floodgates of 
demagoguery from so-called consumer advocates are opened, every mother 
is frightened into believing she may be jeopardizing her family at the 
next meal she serves, and markets react.
  Statistics and science say the likelihood of you, me, or our children 
at home eating a BSE-tainted burger or steak not cooked hot enough to 
kill the pathogen is, on an order of magnitude, less of a threat than 
many of the other risks we accept in our everyday lives, such as 
driving our children to school and back.
  The alarmism and subsequent waves of fear of BSE threats are seen as 
opportunities by many of our trading partners who seek to find any 
excuse to erect trade barriers to our products. These foreign buyers 
ignore the science, statistics, and history. The U.S. position in the 
world market is based on the very sound principle that good science 
should and must prevail. Whether our trade representatives are 
negotiating exports of genetically enhanced rice or soybeans, meat 
produced using the most advanced commercial technologies, or as we 
negotiate reopening of the Japanese beef markets to our own production, 
sound science is the best negotiating tool we have against the Luddites 
and naysayers in our potential foreign markets.
  We cannot fall prey to the wonderful exuberance of populism in 
protecting our markets with false or pseudoscience-based claims while 
expecting the world to accept the products of U.S. farmers who feed the 
world largely due to our use of the latest technologies.
  The Agriculture Department's amended final rule on resumption of beef 
and live cattle trade with Canada was developed based on the best 
science at hand and with broad input from the cattle industry. The 
amended rule restricts imports of beef animals older than 30 months. 
Also, Canada, as I said earlier, has implemented appropriate BSE 
prevention standards similar to our stringent domestic firewalls. As I 
said earlier, this has been confirmed by our scientists who have 
visited and inspected the operations in Canada. This includes the 
banning of all ruminant to ruminant feed and effective enforcement. 
This alone will drastically reduce further contamination in the 
Canadian beef herds. Sound science should prevail here and in all of 
our trade negotiations.
  I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to encourage the 
USDA, our trade representatives in Japan, to apply sound science and to 
continue the move to reopening markets in Japan to our beef exports. 
Recently, I joined with several of my colleagues who also spoke today 
sending a letter to the Ambassador to Japan saying we would not stand 
for pseudoscience-based protectionism preventing the export of U.S. 
beef to Japan.
  This past week, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of 
the Japanese Diet, the legislative body of Japan. I told them of our 
interest in providing beef to the consumers of Japan. They assured me 
that American beef is a very high priority for those Japanese 
consumers. We said, OK, they want it, we have shown it is going to be 
safe, it is time to open your markets and provide a significant export 
opportunity which will serve and reward the U.S. cattle producers.
  I hope we will reject this resolution and allow sound science to 
rule.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 503 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding the 
time.

[[Page 3396]]

  I join today with him and others in the Senate in support of this 
resolution. I hoped it would not come to this, that we could achieve a 
result, an outcome short of having to have this debate in the Senate. 
However, I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with the premise of this 
resolution; that is, that the rule in question is wrong. It is wrong 
timing.
  Agriculture is the No. 1 industry in South Dakota. The cattle 
industry, the livestock industry, is the biggest component of that. 
This industry has an enormous impact on the economy, the gross domestic 
product in my State. In fact, as noted earlier today by another 
speaker, we have probably five or six times the number of cattle than 
we have people in South Dakota.
  Growing up on the Plains of western South Dakota, I have witnessed 
firsthand the incredible work ethic of our livestock producers, the 
willingness to go out during calving season and fight the elements and 
conditions, and to work to nurture the herds and bring them to the 
marketplace, to go through the weather we have to deal with in South 
Dakota on an ongoing yearly basis, and to haul water and to haul feed 
to those herds, to get them to where they can take them to the 
marketplace.
  As a member of the House Ag Committee when we were debating the 2002 
farm bill, I advocated and fought on behalf of country-of-origin 
labeling because I believe it is important that American consumers know 
where their products are coming from. It was included in the 2002 farm 
bill.
  More recently, in the last year or so, this body and the House 
adopted legislation that would delay the implementation of country-of-
origin labeling, which is unfortunate because I think it would alter 
and change the dimensions of the debate we are having here today.
  So I come here today to speak in support of this resolution, and I do 
so knowing full well that as a three-term Member of the House, I come 
here with a record supporting free trade. I supported trade promotion 
authority for both President Clinton and President Bush because I 
believe our leaders in this country need to have the authority to go 
out there and make the best possible deals for our agricultural 
industry and other industries in our country, always reserving the 
right to vote against those trade agreements if I do not believe they 
are in the best interests of American agriculture.
  I do not harbor any ill will toward Canada. Canada has been an 
important trading partner in the past and will continue to be in the 
future. I am hopeful that when this is all said and done we will be 
able to restore that relationship. But, frankly, this issue is not 
about protectionism. It is about safety. It is about science. It is 
about making sure that America's consumers have a safe supply of beef 
products in this country, and also that those that we do business with 
overseas, our trading partners, are fully confident in the exports we 
send their way.
  I believe exports are important to America. They are important to 
agriculture. In this country today, one in every three rows of corn 
goes to the export markets. We would like to see more of it going into 
ethanol. I hope it will. But the reality is, we depend heavily upon 
export markets for the success and prosperity of American agriculture.
  So I supported increasing trade opportunities for our producers. But 
the fact is, we have not been able, at this point, I believe, to 
provide the level of confidence and assurance to the American consumer 
and to producers in this country that, in fact, the Canadians are 
taking the steps necessary to ensure that their herds are 100 percent 
in compliance with the ruminant feed ban.
  My first official act, after being sworn in as a Senator, was to ask 
the President to delay the opening of the border beyond March 7. I have 
insisted that decision to open the border be based, first, on two 
prerequisites: sound science and a return of our foreign cattle export 
markets--namely, the Pacific rim. This has not been answered.
  USDA's own risk assessment in 2002 states the Canadian feed mills 
were not--were not--100 percent complying with the feed ban. The 
borders should not be open until that allegation is fully investigated 
and it is confirmed that the ban is being properly enforced. The most 
recent assessment completed by the USDA team this year concluded that 
the feed ban is reducing the risk of transmission of BSE in the 
Canadian cattle population. That is not 100 percent. Cattle imports 
from Canada should not be accepted until we can be sure feed mills are 
100 percent compliant. American consumers need to be assured the meat 
they are buying at local supermarkets is safe before the border opens, 
not after, and American cattle producers need to be assured that live 
cattle coming from Canada are BSE free.
  As I said earlier, another important aspect is regaining the Asian 
cattle export market. If the trade with these countries is not resumed 
and the border is opened, South Dakota ranchers will be competing 
against Canadian cattle without the benefit of exporting our cattle to 
other countries. Since being sworn in as Senator, I have been in 
ongoing discussions with the USDA and Secretary Johanns trying to find 
a way to resolve this border issue. I cosponsored legislation to modify 
the rule to allow only beef products from animals under 30 months of 
age. In response to that, the USDA then modified their rule to do just 
that. I appreciate the Secretary's and the administration's work on 
this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has spoken for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have to yield, but I simply close by 
saying, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to send a 
strong message to our producers and consumers that we are going to 
support making sure that the feed ban is being complied with, and we 
are going to work hard to make sure our export markets are open before 
this rule is implemented.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
yielding some time to me so I can respond to a number of issues that 
have been brought up.
  First of all, I would like to say that the information we have on the 
food contents is older information. The newest information we have is 
from a group of scientists that went to Canada to check on their rules 
and regulations, on their enforcement. These scientists reported back 
to us on about February 22 of this year, saying that the rules and 
regulations are being enforced robustly in Canada. That includes the 
ruminant on ruminant food regulation where you prevent the consumption 
of ruminant byproducts by other ruminants. I have confidence in these 
trained scientists who know what they are looking for and have given us 
the most recent report on what is happening as far as the food on food 
regulation.
  I would also like to go over some of the positions by the Colorado 
Cattlemen Association as well as the National Beef Association. They 
support a minimal-risk region classification, and they support it on 
the following conditions:
  No beef or beef products will be imported into the U.S. from cattle 
over 30 months of age. That is in place.
  All imported feeder cattle must be harvested previous to 30 months of 
age, and the verification processes must be implemented to track and 
validate harvest age and location. They are doing that with earmarkings 
as well as brands.
  All cattle direct to harvest must be 30 months of age or younger. 
That is being done. It is a provision in the rules and regulations.
  Minimal-risk regions must meet all processing techniques and 
regulations relating to BSE as set out by the U.S. That is what those 
scientists were reporting to us as of the 22nd of February.

[[Page 3397]]

  Adherence and implementation of a U.S. equivalent ruminant to 
ruminant feed ban. That is a requirement. That is what the scientists 
report back, that they are complying with the rules and regulations, 
and we should not have a concern about it.
  And then:

       The Colorado Cattlemen's Association is committed to 
     normalizing global trade based on [good] science that 
     protects the health of the beef industry.

  And they express that:

       Once our concerns have been adequately addressed, CCA will 
     reconsider our position on opening the Canadian border.

  The Colorado Cattlemen Association currently supports the minimal-
risk region rules that have been put out by the Ag, and the Colorado 
Farm Bureau currently supports the Canadian reopening. The Colorado 
Livestock Association supports the reopening, and the National 
Cattlemen's Association, which is headquartered in Colorado, supports 
the Department of Agriculture's provision on minimal risk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me make a couple quick points. It is 
true we had an investigation group go to Canada. Here is what they 
found. They went to seven feed mill operations in Canada. In six of the 
seven, they found one or more unsatisfactory task ratings. In two of 
the seven, they found serious failures to ensure prohibited material 
did not enter the food chain. More seriously, the assessment found that 
only 3 percent of Canada's on-farm feed manufacturers have been 
inspected at least once over the last 3 years.
  Now we are talking about 25,000 on-farm feed operations. These mills 
represent one-half of Canadian livestock feed production. Only 3 
percent have been investigated, were checked in the last 3 years.
  My friends, we are talking about risk. What are the consequences of 
failure? In England, 146 people died. In England, they had to slaughter 
5 million head.
  In Europe, these were the headlines, week after week: ``French 
Farmers in Grip of BSE Panic.'' ``World of Europe Suffering for UK 
Errors.'' ``Mad Cow Disease Kills 500 Dairy Cattle Every Week.'' 
``Slaughter to Prevent Disease on Continent.''
  There were 6 million heads slaughtered. We are talking about 
substantial risk to our industry, to our consumers. Let's be cautious. 
Let's not open the border before we are confident Canada is actually 
enforcing the regulations they have on their books. The evidence is 
very clear that they are not.
  Mr. President, I yield Senator Thomas 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have had a good discussion. I am glad 
we have. There are a number of parts to it, of course. We have talked a 
lot about the safety issue, which is key, and to be confident in the 
things that we have asked Canada to do. We had a hearing with the 
Secretary some time back. He had his scientists there with him, and 
they were not certain they had done all the things that they might do. 
But I think the key is the matter of opening the markets for us.
  Our markets for beef have grown in the last number of years. It has 
been one of the most important things that we have had to export. Most 
of that growth has been in the Pacific Rim--Asia, Japan, Korea. Of 
course, now that is closed. Regardless of what you say about how well 
the Canadians have done, that market is still closed, and it is closed 
because of Canadian activity or lack of it. That is really the key that 
we have to look forward to.
  I am certainly for trade. As a matter of fact, I am chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade of the Finance Committee. We need to do that. But 
I am reluctant to see us open this one until we have some arrangement 
to open Canada and Korea.
  You say: Well, this is unfair to Canada. Nevertheless, that is where 
the problems all came from. That is where the cows came from, the mad 
cow disease, not the U.S. They came from Canada, and the difficulty has 
arisen there.
  So I guess I just simply want to emphasize that we can talk all we 
want to, as my friend from Colorado has, about what has been done 
there. The fact is, we still haven't got our market back. We had good 
exports. We don't have them now. I am not as concerned about the 
processors being able to move up to Canada. The cows are here, 
actually, and that is where they are going to be. So I won't take more 
time because I know there are many others who need and want to talk.
  I hope we can keep in mind that all we are asking is that we have 
more of an opportunity to deal with opening the markets in Japan, 
opening the markets in Korea, before we open the market in Canada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this resolution. 
I wish it didn't have to come to this. Maybe it is just an exercise, in 
light of a Federal judge ruling yesterday, when some of the stockmen in 
my State have chosen to settle this in court rather than what they can 
get through the policy of Congress.
  I reluctantly rise in support of this because I wish that USDA would 
have listened to those of us who have been saying for two months that 
this rule has some problems. I want to say up front that I appreciate 
the new Secretary of Agriculture Johanns's work on this issue. We met 
with him. He came down and talked to us. He got thrown in on this with 
a cold hand, and I know he has been working tirelessly to try to 
respond to everybody's concerns. Then it comes down to the point where 
you come to the fork in the road that everybody's concerns cannot be 
fully addressed. I thank him for doing the right thing and restricting 
the eligible beef cattle to under 30 months old. I feel strongly about 
that. I appreciate his action. I think when we said we are not going to 
take products or cattle over 30 months into this country, that was a 
prudent move.
  But there are still lingering concerns. Whenever this whole thing 
broke out in 2003, I think I was the only one who stood up and said: 
They have a feed problem because, No. 1, it started with an Angus cow 
in Alberta, and then the second cow was the Holstein cow that we found 
in the State of Washington. Then of the two after that, you had one 
Angus cow, two dairy cows, and one Charolais cow. So we know we don't 
have a genetic problem.
  In this ban, we have to be very careful of another unintended 
consequence because there is a great exchange of breeding cattle and 
seed stock production that crosses that border both ways. So we have to 
have some way to deal with that. The Department of Agriculture is 
addressing that situation, too. But it hadn't got there yet.
  I said from the get-go, it is the feed. And every number that we see 
coming out of Canada, and even the report of our USDA team does not 
draw the conclusion that Canada has not really gotten serious about 
checking feed, livestock, or cattle feed, in Alberta, Saskatchewan, or 
across the whole country as far as that goes.
  That is where we all have a little bit of a problem. Consumer 
confidence in beef has never been as good as it is right now. It is 
because we have taken certain steps to make sure that the safety of the 
food is utmost because losing consumer confidence would be much more 
costly than anything that we could do.
  So, yes, I eat beef. Obviously, I have eaten quite a lot of it. I 
have never missed a meal, nor do I plan to.
  So when we talk about those things that are based on science--and my 
friend from Colorado, who has points in this debate, is right on 
target--we have to face the reality of what is best for the cowman. 
Because in my State, unlike Colorado, we don't have a predominance of 
processors. We don't even have a lot of feed cattle, but we have cow-
calf producers and we deal in older cattle, especially at this time of 
the year. And, of course, we sell yearlings and feeder calves. Some of 
those calves will go to Canada under Canada's new rules. That was a 
positive step.

[[Page 3398]]

  But if we back off and take a look at this and let the facts come to 
the top and we consider those facts, we will make better decisions not 
only for our cattle people but also the consumers of this country. Even 
when we got the report of the USDA's team back from Canada, we were on 
break and had little time to look at that report and make a decision: 
Are they doing what they are supposed to do in order to protect their 
own livestock people? That is what Canada did. They let their own 
people down--when you don't enforce the rules of the 1997 ban of 
certain ingredients in cattle feed.
  So what we are saying right now, is that this action furthers the 
protection of two of the most important economies that we have in this 
country, and that is our consuming public and our cow-calf producers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, since the floor manager is not here, I 
yield myself 5 minutes to respond further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to emphasize again how very 
important it is that we proceed on this matter using good scientific 
evidence. I appreciate the statement that was made by the Senator from 
Montana. He is right in many regards that we need to be sure that we 
use good science. I feel good about the enforcement of the rules and 
regulations based on the visit by scientists who just reported back in 
February. It is the most recent report that we have on the enforcement 
of the rules and regulations in Canada. They are very competent 
scientists, very dedicated scientists. And what they reported back to 
us is valid.
  From a trade standpoint, we need to do something for our cattlemen. I 
believe strongly that what we need to do for the cattleman is get the 
borders opened because we are importing Canadian beef today. It is 
boxed beef. The reason that is coming in is because our plants can't 
economically make it. They are having to pay high prices for beef. They 
only have a limited supply of beef, and so they are not up to capacity. 
In the meantime, the processing plants, the beef that they are getting 
is lower cost beef. And then they are putting that on the world market. 
They are importing that into the United States.
  The result is that we see an expansion of the beef industry in 
Canada. They have got plans to build more processing plants. They are 
in the process right now of building more processing plants.
  That means there are going to be more people raising cattle in 
Canada. That means if our processors here don't make it like the one in 
Colorado, we lose our local markets. We lose an opportunity for our 
cattlemen to readily get their beef to market. That costs in shrinkage 
and extra transportation costs, particularly when we look at the cost 
of gasoline and diesel fuel. So this is a problem that needs to be 
resolved quickly.
  We need to move forward with the guidelines that were laid out. By 
the way, the principles laid out in the guidelines have been used by 
the cattle industry in this country to control livestock disease, which 
also affects humans. The principles are laid out here, things like 
brucellosis. We know in cattle country what that is all about. We have 
States classified as brucellosis-free, and there are those having 
problems with that. The movement of cattle back and forth begins with 
addressing brucellosis in those States. Using those principles, we have 
been able to reduce the incidence of brucellosis in this country. It 
works. They are the same principles we are using on BSE and asking for 
Canada and the world organizations to apply, where we take minimal-risk 
countries, such as Canada and the United States, and apply those 
provisions in a good, scientific way.
  That is only part of it. The other part is that during the process 
you don't increase the risk by handling the processes improperly. No. 
1, you don't want to circulate the food and feed it back to the cows, 
the byproducts. That is a policy that has been adopted here and in 
Canada, and it is something we have learned since the outbreak in the 
European Community.
  So, again, I also compliment Secretary of Agriculture Johanns for his 
efforts in trying to protect the beef industry and to use good science. 
He comes from Nebraska. That is a big beef State, as are many of the 
other States. But the important thing is to recognize that free trade 
is a benefit of agriculture. It has benefited particularly the beef 
industry. We want to make sure we get the border open, and we need to 
use good science in opening it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado, Mr. Salazar.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
resolution to disapprove the opening of the Canadian border. My 
position on this is clear. Until we resolve comprehensively the 
underlying issues comprehensively in the interest of health and safety 
in support of our family farms and ranchers, we should keep the border 
closed.
  Today, I speak on behalf of those men and women who are on farms and 
ranches across America, whose livelihood depends on being able to have 
a quality livestock industry in place in their States. I join 
organizations such as the Colorado Cattlemen's Association which said 
it is not now time for us to lift the ban on Canadian imports.
  I have spoken with Secretary Johanns about this issue. I have told 
him that I am for the lifting of the Canadian ban at the appropriate 
time. For me, that means we are not yet ready to do it because there 
are too many questions that still have to be answered prior to getting 
to that decision.
  Many of the questions we have asked Secretary Johanns and the 
Department of Agriculture are questions to which we have not received 
any answers at this point in time: How many inspectors will we have at 
the border as the million, more or less, cattle from Canada start 
coming across the Canadian border and flooding the markets in our 
Nation? How many cattle will they actually check as they come across 
the border? How will they determine which of those cattle are 30 months 
or less of age?
  I have been around cattle for most of my life, and I can tell you it 
is difficult to tell which cows or cattle are more than 30 months of 
age, or more than 3 or 3\1/2\ years. My father might have been able to 
tell us that. When you are talking about that kind of prediction, we 
don't have an answer from the Department of Agriculture.
  How will the entire BSE risk mitigation system be documented? What 
are the segregating procedures for the processing of cattle in Canada 
at this point? How are we integrating the efforts in trying to deal 
with the BSE issue and opening up markets in South Korea and Japan with 
the efforts that we are dealing with now in Canada? Those are very 
serious questions that will impact the American farmer and rancher for 
a long time to come.
  It seems to me it is a very reasonable request that many of us have 
made to Secretary Johanns--that there ought to be a delay in the 
opening of the Canadian border until we can have faith that these 
questions that have been appropriately asked by the ranchers and 
farmers of America are answered.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to join in approval of the 
resolution. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho, Mr. Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is not often that persons speaking on 
the opposing side of the issue on the floor yield time to someone who 
might disagree with them. So I am thankful to the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss, for being so accommodating.

[[Page 3399]]

  Yesterday, a judge in Montana said there remains a question of 
concern as it relates to the science that we hope is well underway in 
Canada. You have certainly heard my colleagues from Montana and others 
argue that is a legitimate concern. Senator Conrad has made that point 
time and time again. It is fair for us to err on the side of science. 
That is where we ought to be. That is where our industry is. That is 
where we ought to demand of the Canadian industry.
  Our industry people have been north of the border and they have seen 
the tremendous progress that has been made. Our Secretary of 
Agriculture has recognized that progress and, in part, premised his 
rule on that basis. At the same time, I am one of those who remains 
skeptical. I think we have to ensure that we cannot take another hit in 
our agricultural economy. In 2003, May, Canada, boom. And then in 
December, along came the cow in the lower 48 that stole Christmas. She 
wasn't green, she was black and white and she pulled the rug out from 
under the industry just for a moment in time.
  Our Secretary of Agriculture effectively stepped in and talked our 
industry and the consuming public into stability again. Why? Because 
the cow had come from Canada. We have had our act together in the lower 
48 for a good long while, prohibiting the incorporation of animal 
protein into the feed supply. We have played by the rules, and they 
have been sustainable, scientific rules, which has assured the American 
consumer safe, high-quality beef.
  But when Canada sneezed and we got the cold, our trading partners 
backed away. In that backing away, we lost a billion-dollar Japanese 
market. I have been one saying to my industry in Idaho that I am going 
to work to force the Canadians to get their act together, while at the 
same time we are going to assure that we open the Japanese market. Our 
President has put pressure openly and personally on the Japanese, as 
has our Vice President and Secretary of State. It is unique and 
unusual, but it demonstrates the importance of the livestock and cattle 
industry to this administration and to our country for them to say to 
the Japanese: Get your act together. We are clean; you know it; you see 
our science. We are doing the right thing.
  Yet the Japanese push back. I cannot in good conscience open a border 
that brings greater numbers to the lower 48 when the science remains 
questionable and we have not resumed the Pacific rim markets that are 
extremely valuable to the livestock industry.
  The new Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Johanns, has been to the 
Hill. We have talked with him. He is doing the right things. We sent a 
letter to him in opposition. He backed away for a time. He is pushing 
the science, and he will continue to do so. But I do believe that a 
March 7 implementation is premature.
  I trust that the judge looking at the evidence in Montana yesterday 
has the same concerns that are being reflected by the Senator from 
North Dakota and certainly by this Senator and many of us firsthand.
  Actions do produce reactions. There are consequences to our action. 
The Senator from Colorado has been concerned about the displacement of 
the packing industry and what it will do, and it is having an impact. I 
am tremendously concerned that if we do not continue this aggressive 
pressure, we could lose capacity in the lower 48 as the Canadian 
industry begins to extend its ability into packing of their livestock 
products.
  Today, in good conscience, I cannot nor will I oppose S.J. Res. 4. I 
believe we are sending an extremely valuable message to all of the 
markets involved, including the Canadians. The Canadians do not get it. 
They see NAFTA as a one-way road. We have been fighting them for 4 
years on timber. They do not get it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used the 5 minutes yielded to 
him.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized for an additional minute.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate that.
  The Canadians do not get it in timber and are still rope-a-doping us. 
The Senator from Montana is in the Chamber. He and I have partnered in 
trying to get them to get their act together on timber. They do not 
play the game well when it is one-way traffic. They are doing the same 
thing in potatoes, and my potato farmers in Idaho are understanding the 
consequence of losing markets.
  Those are the real problems. To our Canadian friends: Listen up. Get 
your act together in Canada. Play by the rules in NAFTA and resume and 
remain the good friends and trading partners we have always been. But 
we will not dislocate economies in the lower 48 for the benefit of 
economic gain in Canada. That is not equality, and that is not the fair 
trade that we are looking at.
  Let's make sure the science is right. We cannot allow another hit on 
the livestock industry of the lower 48.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana. If he asks 
for additional time, I will be happy to extend it to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota. This 
is obviously an extremely important matter because it affects the 
consumption of one of the most valuable staples in the American diet, 
and that is meat. It also affects the livelihood of so many Americans, 
the cattle ranchers, and other producers of meat and red meat products 
in the United States.
  Agriculture is our No. 1 industry in Montana, so this is an extremely 
important matter. We also very much want people in the United States 
and around the world to be confident that the beef produced in the 
United States is free of BSE and is the best beef in the world.
  Now is not the time to open the border to receive Canadian beef down 
to the United States. There may be a time--I hope there is a time--in 
the not too distant future when we can do that. I think the North 
American market makes sense, where beef can be eventually traded freely 
between the United States and Canada. After all, we are so close in so 
many ways. We have the same heritage, the same language. The Canadians 
and Americans are very similar in their outlook on life, with same 
values, so forth.
  But we in the United States are a little concerned--many of us are--
with the direction the U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken on this 
matter; that is, the Department has been quite secretive, that the 
Department, in announcing its first rule to open the border for 
Canadian beef, did not tell us something they knew at that time. What 
is that? They knew at that time that BSE was just discovered in Canada.
  It turned out even after USDA made their announcement of the rule, 
another case of BSE was found in Canada. There have been several cases 
of BSE found in Canada. The one case of BSE found in the United States 
was a Canadian cow, recently imported from Canada. So we are rightfully 
a little concerned. We are concerned because we want to make sure that 
the beef produced in both the United States and Canada meets the 
highest standards.
  We have pretty good standards in the United States now to protect 
against BSE. Probably the best evidence is, to my knowledge, no BSE has 
been reported south of the border in Native American cattle. I think 
there are four cases involving Canadian cattle.
  The Canadians are clearly concerned about their production; they are 
clearly concerned about their consumers. The Canadian people want the 
very best beef. They think their beef is the best beef in the world, 
just like we think our beef is the best beef in the world. That is 
fine. Now is not the time to open the border. We have too many 
questions that are not yet answered.
  One is the new science, new research is going on with BSE which USDA 
is

[[Page 3400]]

not incorporating at all in its final rule; that is, the rule that is 
the subject of this resolution. Even with that, we know that our beef 
is safe. There is no BSE found in the United States, but it probably 
makes sense for that new research to be incorporated in the final rule 
so we are all better assured we have the best beef that we want our 
consumers to have.
  This is also important with respect to one of our major trading 
partners, and that is Japan. About 10 percent of American beef 
production is exported overseas. About 37 percent of those exports 
generally go to Japan. But Japan just said, no, and they closed their 
borders to American beef. It is because of that Canadian cow which had 
BSE that was found in the United States.
  Many times many of us have been over to Japan talking with the 
Japanese, saying our beef is safe; there is no BSE reported in United 
States cows. Because BSE has been discovered in Japan in the last 
several years, the Japanese are very sensitive to the dangers, the 
hideous dangers of BSE.
  I ask the USDA to withdraw this rule. I ask the USDA to make the best 
use of the new research that is available. There is an evidentiary 
hearing coming up soon because a judge in Montana ruled the border 
should be closed. With regard to that investigative hearing the judge 
has ordered, now is the time to take a long hard look at this issue and 
to be transparent, to open up to the public, open up to cattle 
producers, open up to beef packers who have been denied thus far the 
application of their comments as the Department makes its final 
determination.
  Now is just not the time. I hope there will be a later time. Now is 
not it.
  I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of S.J. Res. 4, 
which invokes the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's minimal risk rule. I wanted to explain to 
my colleagues and my constituents my reason for doing so.
  I understand that the use of the Congressional Review Act is rare. 
Congress has successfully used it only once in 2001, and its use should 
not be undertaken lightly. The Congressional Review Act permitting 
these rule disapproval resolutions became law in 1996. Although I 
understand from floor debate today the President intends to veto this 
resolution if it reaches his desk, if the Senator from North Dakota, 
Mr. Conrad, were successful, the result of his actions would be to 
overturn the minimal risk rule and prohibit USDA from issuing another 
similar rule unless Congress authorizes the agency to act.
  I believe adopting this rule at this time is not the right action for 
our Nation's consumers and our country's beef industry. As Secretary 
Johanns stated during his confirmation hearing, reestablishing trade to 
Japan and other countries is our No. 1 priority. This goal will only be 
achieved when we prove that we have implemented and enforced dependable 
BSE firewalls.
  Though Canada may have taken action to eliminate some loopholes in 
its feed ban, and is considering additional rules to ban specialized 
risk materials or SRMs from animal feed, we should not open our borders 
until these additional firewalls are in place. And we should be doing 
more to ensure that our feed is not contaminated by similar loopholes 
in the United States.
  Existing loopholes in the 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban continue 
to pose a risk that ruminant materials may find their way into cattle 
feed.
  Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promised to close 
these loopholes and stated that it had reached a preliminary conclusion 
last July to remove SRM from all animal feed, the agency has failed to 
act.
  Therefore, to address this issue, I have introduced legislation 
entitled the Animal Feed Protection Act of 2005, S.73, which would ban 
SRMs from being used in any animal feed. This would eliminate the 
possibility that ruminant materials are knowingly or accidentally fed 
to cattle.
  Banning SRMs from all animal feed is an important step we can take to 
fully ensure the safety of ruminant feed, and I hope that the Senate's 
vote today will encourage our Government and the Canadian Government to 
act more swiftly on this issue.
  Some will argue that I should be convinced by the report APHIS 
released at the end of February stating that Canada's feed ban 
compliance is good. I am not convinced.
  On January 24, 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, sent a team of technical 
experts to Canada to assess Canada's current feed ban and feed 
inspection program. The APHIS investigation was initiated in response 
to Canada's latest case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, which 
came just days after the USDA published its ``Minimal Risk Rule'' in 
the Federal Register on January 4, 2005.
  The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the 
control measures put in place by the Canadian Government are achieving 
compliance with regard to these regulations. This was a serious 
investigation. Canada's latest BSE case, reported on January 11, 2005, 
was particularly alarming because it was discovered in a cow under 7 
years of age and was thus born after implementation of the 1997 
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban.
  On January 12, 2005, I sent a letter to Secretary Veneman and then-
Governor Johanns, requesting that the audit being conducted by APHIS 
inspectors be given time for a full and fair analysis. The final APHIS 
report of last week largely repeats information USDA released as part 
of its risk assessment supporting the minimal risk rule in January. 
This Senator asked for a full look, if 2 weeks of Canadian inspections 
yielded compelling evidence that the Canadian feed ban was being fully 
enforced, this report misses the mark.
  I strongly believe that all consumers deserve reassurance that 
Canadian rendering facilities, feed mills, and ranchers are in 
compliance with Canada's feed regulations. As you know, the ruminant 
feed ban has been determined to be arguably the most important BSE risk 
mitigation measure to protect animal health.
  The APHIS report states that ``Canada has a robust inspection 
program, that overall compliance with the feed ban is good and that the 
feed ban is reducing the risk of transmission of bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy in the Canadian cattle population.''
  It is not clear what ``good'' compliance means. We must provide our 
trading partners, such as Japan and South Korea, stronger assurances 
than those provided in this APHIS report.
  We must provide them proof that we have done everything possible to 
control and eradicate this deadly disease as we work to reestablish the 
trust of their consumers and access to their markets.
  It is very important that USDA systematically evaluate all possible 
risks before reopening the border to Canadian cattle. I do not believe 
that USDA has completed this level of evaluation.
  Therefore, I will be asking the National Academy of Sciences to 
review the APHIS findings. They should assess whether every aspect 
critical to evaluating feed regulations and compliance has been 
addressed in this report or if additional analyses and inspections are 
needed.
  The American public must be assured that Canadian cattle will not 
increase the risk of BSE in the U.S. Until the American public has been 
assured, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the Canadians are in full 
compliance with feed regulations it is prudent that we delay moving 
forward on reopening the border until this assurance has been made.
  The question of what will be best for the U.S. beef industry with 
respect to reopening the border to Canada is complex. And deciding how 
best to proceed is not an easy decision to make or an easy step to 
take.
  Segments of the U.S. beef industry are clearly divided on this issue 
and not in agreement regarding what is best for the future of the U.S. 
beef industry. This is due in most part because this rule has affected 
industry segments in vastly different ways.
  Although some regions of the U.S. have been hit harder than others, I

[[Page 3401]]

know we all agree that as a nation, reestablishing the export markets 
and international market share that the U.S. beef industry once held, 
is our No. 1 priority. With that common goal in mind, we must use basic 
common sense and delay going forward with the implementation of this 
rule at this time.
  Therefore, in the interest of reestablishing the trust of our trading 
partners and preserving the confidence of the American people, I will 
be voting in favor of this resolution and would urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support the resolution of the Senator 
from North Dakota disapproving the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
minimal risk rule allowing expanded trade in cattle and beef products 
from Canada. I take this opportunity to explain my reasons for doing 
so.
  It is critical we restore beef and cattle trade with our trading 
partners, but we must do it right. Unfortunately, USDA's rule is flawed 
in several respects that need to be addressed. To the credit of our new 
Secretary of Agriculture, he swiftly recognized at least one of these 
significant shortcomings, and delayed USDA's proposal to allow shipment 
of Canadian beef from cattle over 30 months of age into the United 
States. USDA's ill-considered approach would have resulted in 
significant economic hardships for many U.S. beef packers, particularly 
those that slaughter culled dairy cows as their primary business. 
Secretary Johanns recognized this, and I commend him for his quick 
response.
  Further recognizing the shortcomings of USDA's rule, the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Montana has granted the Ranchers-
Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America's, R-CALF, 
request for a preliminary injunction barring USDA's minimal risk rule 
from taking effect. This is the second time that USDA has lost in court 
on this issue.
  While we still await the judge's rationale for this decision, I 
believe the unfortunate reality is that USDA has largely dug its own 
hole by failing to follow U.S. legal procedure and scientific 
guidelines in its rule for further reopening U.S. markets to Canadian 
cattle and beef. Sadly, it is U.S. producers and processors that bear 
the brunt of USDA's failings.
  I have been concerned that USDA's final minimal risk rule strays from 
the World Animal Health Organization's--OIE--scientific guidelines in 
important respects. Specifically, USDA has crafted minimal risk 
criteria that are weaker than OIE standards specify. For instance, 
USDA's rule does not spell out what is required to have an effective 
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, an effective BSE surveillance plan, or 
require a compulsory reporting and investigation system. In fact, USDA 
seems to have purposefully dropped elements of the OIE guidelines that 
might have required the United States to classify Canada as a moderate 
risk country for BSE instead of minimal risk.
  At a hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
on these issues, USDA attempted to explain these discrepancies by 
stating that there are redundancies among the several types of measures 
against BSE, and therefore if a country is weaker in one measure it 
might compensate in another measure. However, in the case of Canada, 
USDA has failed to set forth what measures Canada might be stronger in 
that warrant allowing slippage in others.
  I am fully aware that these concerns about Canada are relevant to our 
systems here in the United States for preventing and detecting the 
incidence of BSE. Since we first discovered BSE in this country, I have 
questioned the efficacy of both our restrictions on feeding ruminant 
byproducts and our BSE surveillance plan. I do not believe there are 
grave problems that threaten human health, but I do believe there are 
areas where we need improvement, such as enforcement of our feed rules 
and the effectiveness of our surveillance efforts.
  Ultimately, we need to come to a common agreement with our beef and 
cattle trading partners regarding an acceptable framework for 
classifying a country's risk of BSE. If USDA designates a minimal risk 
region for trading that does not stand up to the scientific principles 
that are established by OIE, we will hinder those efforts to reopen 
markets.
  It is a sadly ironic footnote to this debate that, were USDA to 
correct the deficiencies in its rule, it would not prevent any of the 
Canadian cattle or beef products that USDA has proposed to allow from 
entering the United States. It would simply necessitate that some 
additional safeguards be put into place.
  Unfortunately, USDA has turned a deaf ear to these valid concerns 
about the rule, and that is why we find ourselves here today. I hope 
USDA is listening to today's debate and will take these concerns more 
seriously. Our objective today is not to shut down trade indefinitely 
but, rather, to obtain the needed changes in the rule to facilitate the 
restoration of safe trade in cattle and beef products with countries 
that have experienced BSE. And that includes reopening now-closed 
markets for U.S. beef exports.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me be very clear about this. I feel 
passionately about competition and concentration-based issues.
  Last Congress I introduced the Packer Ban, the Transparency Act, 
which requires packers to purchase pigs and cattle for slaughter from 
the cash market daily, the 20-10 bill, which limits any packer which 
owns more than 20 million head of pigs to slaughtering less than 10 
million vertically integrated pigs, and a bill to eliminate mandatory 
arbitration clauses from production contracts, similar to legislation 
we passed for car dealers.
  I feel strongly that we need to empower producers through legislation 
based on leveling the playing field, but this resolution is not how we 
should accomplish that goal.
  By supporting this resolution we are taking a protectionist position 
instead of encouraging free trade. We might delay the importation of 
900,000 feeders, but ultimately we are potentially putting our entire 
export market at risk, including the Japanese market.
  In the world we lead by example, and if our example is tied to the 
precautionary nature of this resolution, expect the world to 
potentially follow suit.
  The decision by USDA to re-open the border has been construed as a 
``rush to judgment''. That could not be further from the truth.
  The truth of the matter is that we have an obligation to look at the 
science of the issue and if the science dictates, we should re-open the 
border. That is where we are today. If someone this morning can 
demonstrate to me that the science USDA has relied on is faulty, I 
would be the first person to say we should not move forward, but 
science must dictate our course, not political will.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 4 that 
would disapprove the administration's regulations that would 
reestablish trade with Canada for live cattle under 30 months of age.
  As a doctor, I fully appreciate our responsibility to protect the 
American public's health and safety by making sure our food supply is 
secure.
  At the outset of the bovine spongiform encephalophathy, BSE, scare in 
December 2003, the former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Venaman worked 
tirelessly to address this public health concern. That work has 
continued under the new Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns.
  Based on the information I have seen, I believe multiple safeguards 
are in place today both in Canada and the United States to protect 
human and animal health. Based on a U.S. investigative team that has 
examined Canada's compliance with a feed ban, based on a strong 
Canadian surveillance system testing cattle most likely to have had 
BSE, and, based on a ban on cattle imports into Canada from countries 
that have had widespread BSE, all reasonable efforts appear to have 
been taken at this time to minimize the risk of Canadian beef imports 
into the United States.

[[Page 3402]]

  Sound science must be a basis to governing our trade relations around 
the globe. I believe that such science has been applied here and that 
the administration's regulations on Canadian beef import should 
proceed.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Colorado 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, questions were raised earlier about the 
accuracy of dentition; in other words, looking at the eruption of teeth 
to identify when the animal is 30 months old. That is pretty exact 
science. It is very reliable; not to say maybe one or two cows will 
slip through that are off a month or two. That is why the 30-month 
period was selected, because this is a disease of slow onset, and when 
they are under 30 months, we ordinarily do not have to worry about 
them.
  Let us suppose somebody has some concerns about an animal that may be 
infected with BSE coming across a border. What happens is there are 
certain rules and regulations where one transfers from Canadian 
regulation over to American regulation. We only have certain points of 
entry into the United States, and when that animal comes into the 
United States, it is very adequately marked. They have ear tags and 
they are branded so that if something should happen to the ear tags, 
they still have the brand on the animal.
  The only thing that can happen to that animal is it moves into an 
approved feedlot, it is isolated in that feedlot, for the purpose of 
slaughter. So that animal then is processed for slaughter. In the 
processing procedure, all of the central nervous system tissue--the 
brain, spinal cord--is discarded. It is not used for consumption. If 
there is a temperature on that animal, it is not slaughtered.
  So when one takes into consideration the final steps of the process, 
they can understand I do not hesitate to suggest that people ought to 
eat beef. Our beef is safe and the beef processed in this country is 
safe.
  I have a letter dated March 3. It was sent to me and is from Jim 
McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He 
states flatly that this resolution should be opposed for the following 
reasons, and he gives six reasons. He says this resolution should be 
opposed and in its place would urge the Senate to support an effort to 
open the Japanese, South Korean, and additional markets for U.S. cattle 
producers.
  I thank those 19 Senators who joined me in writing a letter to the 
Japanese Ambassador to open their markets to American beef.
  Mr. McAdams states that the failure to open these markets has cost 
the U.S. cattle producers $175 per head and a cumulative loss of nearly 
$5 billion in income. We need the full attention of the Senate to act 
on this issue, not to act to block science-based trade policies.
  Then No. 2 states:

       The resolution supports blocking a science and risk-based 
     analysis and phasing in opening of the Canadian borders. This 
     action does meet the real needs of U.S. cattle producers, as 
     it will give excuses for other countries to block our 
     exports.

  Point No. 3 in the letter opposing the resolution:

       The resolution should be opposed and in its place, we urge 
     the Senate to support action to ensure the Canadian 
     government eliminates their blue tongue and anaplasmosis 
     trade barriers for all classes of U.S. cattle exports to 
     Canada.

  Think about that.

       The resolution will allow maintaining the status quo with 
     Canada further accelerating the shift of the packing, 
     processing capacity, and jobs from the U.S. to Canada, and 
     hurting U.S. cattle producers.
       The resolution ignores the fact that beef is safe. Analysis 
     of the reports by industry and government clearly indicate 
     that Canada, just like the U.S., has taken the necessary 
     steps to ensure that their beef is safe. This resolution 
     perpetuates fear mongering over nonexistent safety concerns 
     and misrepresents well-documented science doing a disservice 
     to the cattle industry and U.S. consumers.
       The USDA has already addressed prior producer concerns of 
     this rule, to the extent that USDA has withdrawn the section 
     of the final rule regarding beef from animals over thirty 
     months.
       We urge you to vote NO on this resolution.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the issue before this body is as clear as 
it can be. This is going to be a consequential vote, make no mistake 
about it. This may be a vote that Members look back on and, if they 
vote against this resolution, they may deeply regret that in the 
future, because if, God forbid, additional mad cow cases come in from 
Canada, and that awful disease spreads in America, the consequences to 
this country could be enormous.
  We all know what happened in Europe. It is not a matter of 
speculation. In England, 146 people died. Nearly 5 million head were 
slaughtered in England alone.
  Let us connect the dots. In Canada, we know there are four confirmed 
cases of mad cow disease from cattle raised in that country. In 
addition, there is one case of a confirmed BSE positive cow, mad cow, 
that was imported from England. That is five cases. The most recent was 
a cow born after Canada supposedly put in the protections. The 
Canadians' own inspection service found that in 59 percent of the cases 
where they tested, animal matter was found where it was not supposed to 
be. That is what heightens the risk of mad cow disease.
  Some of those cases, in fairness, have now been resolved. Seventeen 
percent of the cases have not been. In Canada, there are 25,000 feed-
producing entities on farms. They produce half of all the feed in 
Canada. Only 3 percent have been checked in the last 3 years. There are 
four known cases of mad cow in Canada. There should be no rush to open 
this border in the face of that evidence. The risk to this country, the 
risk to human life, and the risk to this industry is simply too great.
  My colleague talks about the National Cattlemen's position. This is 
what they have said with respect to opening the border. They said there 
are 11 conditions that should be met, and 8 of them have clearly not 
been met. I do not know if they have changed their position 
subsequently, but this is what they outlined, and 8 of these 11 
positions have not been met.
  In my own State, the cattlemen have told me to go forward with this 
resolution. My own State legislature, overwhelmingly Republican, has 
overwhelmingly approved a resolution asking us to keep this border 
closed until we can have greater confidence that Canada is enforcing 
their own regulations.
  This is a consequential vote. The potential risk to this country is 
enormous. Anybody who is betting that Canada is enforcing their 
regulations is making a bet that I do not think stands much scrutiny.
  I will end as I began, at least in this part of the debate. When the 
Canadian media used the Information Act in their country to look at 
what the Canadian testing authority themselves had found, they looked 
at 70 tests conducted by the Canadian agency, and they found in 59 
percent of the cases, animal matter was present where it was not 
supposed to be. This is a risk that is not worth taking. The 
consequences could be far too grave for the American people and the 
American economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed 
as in morning business and that Senator Dole be recognized for 5 
minutes, Senator Martinez for 5 minutes,

[[Page 3403]]

Senator Allard for 3 minutes, and myself for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Dole, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Allard 
are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')


                       order of procedure--s. 256

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes 
in relation to the Dayton and Nelson amendments, which were to follow 
immediately after the vote on S.J. Res. 4, now be set to occur at 2 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I further ask unanimous consent that at 12:50 the 
Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the pending resolution with the 
time equally divided between Senators Chambliss and Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I may very briefly sum up, I hope my 
colleagues will give careful consideration to this vote. This vote 
would disapprove the ruling from the USDA that the border with Canada 
should be opened on March 7.
  I say respectfully that this runs a risk which we should not take. It 
is very clear from all of the evidence that Canada is not enforcing the 
regulations upon which USDA relied in recommending that the border be 
opened. The consequences to our country could be serious and dramatic.
  Let me close by reminding my colleagues that when mad cow disease got 
loose in England, 146 people died, and nearly 5 million head of 
livestock were slaughtered. We cannot and we should not run the risk of 
prematurely opening our border when we know there are four confirmed 
cases of mad cow disease in Canada, and when we know from the 
Canadians' own inspection service that in nearly 60 percent of the 
cases, animal matter was found where it should not have been.
  This is a consequential vote. I hope my colleagues will take it 
seriously. We ought to at least buy time until further investigations 
are made to assure us that the risk of mad cow disease coming into this 
country has been reduced in as significant a way as is possible.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again I thank my colleague from North 
Dakota for bringing up this issue. I know it is of critical importance, 
as do a number of Members of this body. But I must remind folks that as 
we have gone through the debate here today, we have heard time and time 
again from those who are opposed to this resolution that this is an 
issue not of emotion but an issue of sound science. All of the sound 
science says that the Secretary of Agriculture has made the correct 
decision and that the border should be opened with Canada for the 
importation of beef and cattle under 30 months of age.
  I want to remind our folks, too, that as you think about how you are 
going to vote, know and understand that once again the checks and 
balances system we have in our Constitution is at work on this issue. 
There was a court decision yesterday. A temporary restraining order was 
issued relative to the further reopening of the border on Monday. That 
decision will be decided on the merits after a full hearing from both 
sides. In this body we have heard contradictory statements. There an 
impartial judge will make a decision based upon his findings relative 
to the facts in the case.
  This is not a health issue. It is not a health risk to human beings 
if the border is reopened. This is an issue of animal safety. It should 
be based upon sound science.
  Let me read two things.
  First of all, I have a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture dated 
March 3, 2005, and I want to read two sentences from the letter.
  First, the Secretary says:

       If Canadian beef and cattle posed a risk to U.S. human or 
     animal health, USDA would never have proposed reopening the 
     border. Science must be the touchstone governing our trade 
     relations and guiding our actions.

  Continued closure of the Canadian border is not justified by the best 
scientific understanding of BSE risks.
  Lastly, let me read a Statement of Administration Policy dated March 
3, 2005, from the Executive Office of the President of the United 
States, Office of Management and Budget, as follows:

       The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. 
     Res. 4, a resolution to disapprove the rule submitted by the 
     United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) with respect 
     to establishing minimal risk regions and reopening the 
     Canadian border for beef and cattle imports. USDA's rule is 
     the product of a multi-year, deliberative, transparent, and 
     science-based process to ensure that human and animal health 
     are fully protected. S.J. Res. 4, which would prevent the 
     reopening of our Canadian border, would cause continued 
     serious economic disruption of the U.S. beef and cattle 
     industry, undermine U.S. efforts to ensure that international 
     trade standards are based on science, and impede ongoing U.S. 
     efforts to reopen foreign markets now closed to U.S. beef 
     exports. If S.J. Res. 4 were presented to the President, he 
     would veto the bill.

  With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 56 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say quickly in response, no court can 
relieve the responsibilities of this vote from our Members. Every 
Member is going to be responsible for the vote we cast. When my 
colleague says this is not a health issue, I respectfully disagree. 
This is profoundly a health issue. If mad cow disease is ever unleashed 
in this country, God forbid, we will find out what an acute health 
issue it is.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. It is the prudent, 
careful, and cautious thing to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass? The yeas 
and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) 
and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thune
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Feingold
     Inouye
      
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 4) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 4

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in

[[Page 3404]]

     Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Agriculture relating to the 
     establishment of minimal risk zones for introduction of 
     bovine spongiform encephalopathy (published at 70 Fed. Reg. 
     460 (2005)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________